Apple Has Spent More Than $100 Million Suing Android Manufacturers

Does not compute by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."

WTH? What happened in the 9 cases where the patent was proven to be infringed but the ruling didn't go in Apple's favour?

Re:Does not compute by almitydave · 2012-01-24 09:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't see it discussed in TFAs, but all 10 could be from the same case, or Apple could have lost the cases for some other reason, such as when filing the paperwork with the court, on the place on the form that says "do not write in this space," they wroke "okay."

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:Does not compute by oxdas · 2012-01-24 10:42 · Score: 3, Informative

I think the reason is these are not full court cases,but injunction hearings. Only one jurisdiction, Germany, is enforcing any sort of an injunction and they are still allowing third parties to market and sell Samsung products, just not Samsung.
Re:Does not compute by s.petry · 2012-01-24 10:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Groklaw I believe is where I read a brief summary. The judge in at least one of those cases said that while there was infringement there was no possible way that damages were caused because of the nature of the patent. I like smart Judges personally.
In several other cases (again see if you can find them on Groklaw) the MFR was given time to work around the patent. Again no damages were awarded.
Which is which case? No idea off the top of my head. I read way to much to know sources this long after reading them.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Does not compute by Xeranar · 2012-01-24 12:01 · Score: 4, Informative

9 cases of infringement that involved software that was changed in the next update so that while Apple MAY have won court costs they didn't win any profit from the defendant. Winning infringement cases usually means the end of a product in the physical world but since this is design attacks on software they can simply rectify the issue in the next software push and thus negate the whole issue.
Re:Does not compute by mjwx · 2012-01-24 12:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."
WTH? What happened in the 9 cases where the patent was proven to be infringed but the ruling didn't go in Apple's favour?
They made minor changes to the software as per court orders.

What you have to remember is that Apple are so afraid of Android that they are suing over anything and everything no matter how petty.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Does not compute by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-25 00:55 · Score: 1

It's a business expense, the same as having an advertising budget. Sue your competitors continually. Apple can afford that particular war of attrition.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Does not compute by zeroshade · 2012-01-25 02:56 · Score: 1

That's the thing, at this point Apple is just burning money in a large bonfire while playing whack-a-mole.
Re:Does not compute by lorenlal · 2012-01-25 03:39 · Score: 1

Me thinks that Apple should see this... And maybe... MAYBE... spend that money in R&D instead of L&O.
Maybe they could spend that $100 M on better user trials to avoid situations like that old pesky antenna issue.

1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by psergiu · 2012-01-24 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Lambeco · 2012-01-24 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image. And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-24 09:09 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter that much. In 2010, $100 million would have been about one tenth of one percent of Apple's income.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-24 09:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
As the case wasn't tried in South Korea, I think the award was probably in dollars.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Penguinisto · 2012-01-24 09:14 · Score: 2

I don't think he was asking if suing was a profit center for Apple, but rather asking whether the money recovered via license agreements would cover the costs of all that litigation.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by nomadic · 2012-01-24 09:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is about Steve Jobs throwing a tantrum because Google had the audacity to try and compete with the iphone with Android.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Qzukk · 2012-01-24 09:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real question is: how much money did all the lawsuits (winning or not) cost the competitors?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 09:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Zero. HTC just removed the feature and the court where Apple brought the suit can't issue money damages.
.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/21/BU5H1MFCVG.DTL
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Calos · 2012-01-24 09:39 · Score: 1

Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Calos · 2012-01-24 09:40 · Score: 1

Yes.
And don't forget - the monetary cost to the defendants is only part of the cost to the platform as a whole.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by khallow · 2012-01-24 09:51 · Score: 2

The point here is that lawsuits just like anything else done by Apply is a business operation. And it's worth asking just as with anything else such as a product line whether they're getting value for that money. It sounds to me like they sunk $100 million without having much to show for it.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by ArcherB · 2012-01-24 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
The summary author could be Pro-Apple-Stockholder and is outrage that the company his retirement depends on has wasted $100,000,000 on frivolous lawsuits.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Dahamma · 2012-01-24 09:58 · Score: 1

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Lambeco · 2012-01-24 10:02 · Score: 1

I think Apple tends to play the long game, with a tendency to err on the side of extremism. Will this $100 million be recovered in prevented IP theft (i.e. profit made by companies that have "stolen" Apple's design)? Probably not directly. And probably not in a measurable way. But I think Apple considers the thought leadership loss prevention worth it. They want to remain unique, and litigation appears to be one of the tools they like to use to maintain that position.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is about Steve Jobs throwing a tantrum because Google had the audacity to try and compete with the iphone with Android.
The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Pieroxy · 2012-01-24 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Do you mean to say Apple offered everything on iOS to Google and said "There. Do what you want with it." ?
That's not the story - at least not the way I remember it.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Pieroxy · 2012-01-24 10:21 · Score: 1

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...
Awwww, come on... It's all the same ip thingy now.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by MrDoh! · 2012-01-24 10:27 · Score: 2

As we're seeing though,those patents aren't that strong. Can of worms opening up is that the stuff they have isn't that noteworthy, and the people they're attacking appear to have just as many, perhaps more actual meaningful patents.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Lambeco · 2012-01-24 10:38 · Score: 1

That's true. I definitely misused "trademark" there and should have left it out.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by teg · 2012-01-24 10:42 · Score: 3, Informative

The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Apple licensed the technology, and paid in Apple stock. So not comparable
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-24 10:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Right, when Samsung is coming out with products as unique as this: (http://inspiredbyapple.tumblr.com/tagged/Samsung), why would anyone doubt this is all about Jobs's tantrum?
Besides, before the iPad tablets looked almost exactly the same as and functioned just like Apple's products: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113375/tablet_pc_turns_one.html
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Citizen+of+Earth · 2012-01-24 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
Not really. It's about obstructing its competitors from bringing their phones to market. Apple figured out a year ago that its competitors have better phones than it does.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by siddesu · 2012-01-24 11:42 · Score: 2

If this is the rationale, they seem to be showing a very un-Appleish return on investment, and not only short-term -- every loss seems to permanently remove value from their "intellectual property portfolio".
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by siddesu · 2012-01-24 11:49 · Score: 2

It was not a matter of "properly patenting" their UI or not at all -- at the time they would very likely not have been able to get such a nefarious patent even if they tried very hard. Unfortunately, things have changed a lot since then.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Xeranar · 2012-01-24 12:10 · Score: 2

Some the patents being handed out for the most mundane concepts in computing are out of hand. Just as another said, if Apple had tried to patent overlapping windows most likely they would have either not been awarded the patent or would have been thrown out in court. On top of it all if the patent had held up for the initial 14 years Apple would have crushed the speed of computing under the weight of their proprietary systems. We should be praying everyday that Apple didn't win that fight and they don't win future fights. This is the issue when a manufacturer wants to get in bed with software and hold all the cars.
100 million is piddlings to Apple but I suspect that part of this is driven by the lawyers at Apple being their own shot callers now and the artistic aspects of Apple being fed by their egos. It's not going to crush the company any time soon but it will put a dent in them if they keep picking fights with companies big enough to tango. War chest or not Samsung has the income and the power to roll with Apple and I doubt that the lawyers for Apple truly care about the consequences as they see the massive dollar signs.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by mjwx · 2012-01-24 12:59 · Score: 1

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about

stopping competition because Apple cant compete.

And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by psiclops · 2012-01-24 14:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Before the iPhone was first unveiled(January 2007) there was a phone (LG Prada) that actually did look a lot like an iPhone

LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”[8]
Note: While the LG Prada was not released until after the iPhone, the design and concept were released before we saw any of this from Apple.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by artor3 · 2012-01-24 14:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

So you're saying that Apple should be able to trademark the rounded rectangle? That's stupid. Touchscreen devices, quite obviously, should try to maximize the size of the screen relative to the device. And anything that people must handle regularly shouldn't have sharp corners. The rounded rectangle is simply a case of form following function.
Also, at least one of those photos has been manipulated to make the Samsung phone look more like the iPhone. The Galaxy S and iPhone 3G have different dimensions, including different aspect ratios, yet they appear identical in the photo comparing them. Whoops! Newsflash... if you have to lie to prove your point, you don't have one.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Creepy · 2012-01-24 14:52 · Score: 1

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image. And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.
And what company wouldn't? $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple - about 1/140th of last quarter's profit (much less for how much they've spent total), and in the process they've disrupted Android phone releases with lawsuits, called them an inferior copy, patented simple things like swipe to unlock, etc, so they have plenty of fodder for more lawsuits. Capitalism is all about winning, and while I don't share that mentality, Apple has become very good at it - certainly much better than when Microsoft cloned their OS's.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 15:06 · Score: 1

Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Calos · 2012-01-24 16:36 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Simon+Brooke · 2012-01-24 21:25 · Score: 3, Informative

We are talking about a company that nearly went out of business because they didn't properly patent their UI (And Apple did a lot of improvements over the Xerox design)
Speaking as someone who worked on both Xerox and Apple computers during the mid 1980s, this is rubbish. There were no significant innovations which Apple and its offspring brought to their user interface - at least until NeXT Step - which had not at least been experimentally tried at Xerox PARC before Steve Jobs' famous visit. Even if they had, nothing in this ought to be patentable anyway - it's all reasonably obvious to any practitioner in the field as soon as the technology (bit-mapped screens and a pointing device) becomes available. When I last bothered to track it, there were fourteen US patents for which I personally had created prior art; I'm sure there are many more now.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by ArcherB · 2012-01-25 01:17 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Yeah, what's $100 million. That's nothing. Why I remember back when Bill Gates gave $100 million to Apple and it literally saved the company from going under. But those were bad times, right? We're in good times now and the bad times are long behind us. So it's OK to blow $100 million because we all know that the bad times will never return and we will NEVER say, "Gee! That $100 million sure would come in handy today."

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm sure being known as a patent troll brings huge benefits for your company's image.
Not like the cult members will care anyway, they will continue to buy their shinny overpriced fruity gadgets.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by TheLink · 2012-01-25 07:18 · Score: 1

Any comments on this:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&showcomments=1
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Busy_Being_Born.txt

Even if they had, nothing in this ought to be patentable anyway - it's all reasonably obvious to any practitioner in the field as soon as the technology
FWIW, I believe patents should be abolished. It's come to a point where patents cost society more than they benefit society, especially software and process patents.
Too many patents are used to stop someone else from doing something even if the patent holder can't do it as well or doesn't even intend to do it. Too many patents are used to stop people from doing something trivial.
It's ridiculous that patent defenders say patents are needed otherwise "important secrets" would be lost, and then others say that patents stop others from copying their stuff easily!
When an expert in the field in the same situation facing the same problem can _independently_ come up with the same solution within a short time, but the organization has to spend a longer time negotiating a patent license, progress is impeded.
Patents reward the trivial more than the innovative. Some really innovative stuff is so nonobvious that the market doesn't grok it till the patents are expired ;).
As for an alternative, how about Prizes for Innovation instead (with categories similar to Hugo and Nebula awards, by public and experts in field). It's easier to reward in hindsight than for an overworked patent examiner to figure out whether something should be patentable.
Sure it means companies won't get monopolies on inventions, big deal. Anyone really believe that Apple wouldn't be making billions in a world without patents? Samsung may be selling a bit more, but Apple would still be raking in the billions. Even with drugs. Do you trust some Indian/Chinese pharmaceutical company to produce a "generic" of the same quality, purity and consistency? So some people will pay extra just to be safe.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by mcgrew · 2012-01-25 08:04 · Score: 1

No. Trademarks are forever. Corporate copyrights are 95 years. Patents are 20 years. Of the three, the only one that is property is trademark.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by Calos · 2012-01-25 15:36 · Score: 1

Pretty much, yeah. Quibbles with your numbers and lack of regard for inflation and purchasing power and the requirements of competing internationally, and the assumption that the lawsuits will net Apple nothing, casting them both aside... Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Everything scales with size, including waste. With scale, it becomes cost-prohibitive to do the auditing to reduce waste. You can end up losing more by trying too hard to waste less. The focus has to switch to percent waste, not gross figures. Though the gross may be huge, sometimes the benefits outweigh it.
It's not like Apple is going to set aside that $100 million and vow never to touch it unless it's nearly bankrupt. That's not how an effective business works, on the average. Spending it now, appropriately, can mean you never get to that point anyway.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-27 13:17 · Score: 1

Uh... no. You have no idea what you're talking about. The Prada wasn't even officially announced until December 12, 2006, and shown off after the iPhone's introduction in January. Also it was a piece of junk feature phone.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-27 13:23 · Score: 1

So you're saying that Apple should be able to trademark the rounded rectangle?
Strawman alert! Please stop being such a biased and misinformed tool.

So much for returns. by sethstorm · 2012-01-24 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

They could have gotten higher ones investing in manufacturing in the US for US markets versus this unproductive litigation.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:So much for returns. by psergiu · 2012-01-24 09:09 · Score: 3, Informative

They did - Samsung will open a new factory in Texas for producing the A? CPUs. Too bad that they will be shipped to China for final assembly as there are no suitable factories in US :)

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Re:So much for returns. by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-24 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft's mobile business essentially IS extorting money from Android manufacturers to indemnify themselves against litigation, I'm not sure why Apple wouldn't try their hand at it too.
Re:So much for returns. by Gribflex · 2012-01-24 09:34 · Score: 1

I think Microsoft's strategy is to generate revenue by accepting licensing payments from android manufacturers. This is good for their bottom line as they are making steady income from other people.
Apple's strategy, I think, is to damage their competitors. By keeping android in court, they are hurting sales numbers directly (samsung products being banned for sale, even for just a few months), or indirectly (third party developers question whether android is the right platform; manufacturers reducing their focus on android phones).
They aren't making any money directly from their legal action, but if you look at the whole picture, I'll bet they are doing at least as well as Microsoft. The iPhone still has a hefty market share - which is important for Apple because they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions. If they took licensing payments instead, they would get some money from the manufacturers, but potentially lose their cut on movies, music, apps, etc.
Re:So much for returns. by s.petry · 2012-01-24 10:48 · Score: 1

Truth hurts sometimes doesn't it?
To me, nothing wrong with comparing to steaming piles on occasion. Especially if you are forced to smell them by law (IP Patent Law that is).

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:So much for returns. by j-beda · 2012-01-24 15:18 · Score: 3, Informative

The iPhone still has a hefty market share - which is important for Apple because they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions.
I don't think it invalidates any of your other points, but it looks like iTunes (apps, music, and video) brought in about 1/10 the money as did sales of iPhones in the last quarter, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from iPad sales, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from CPU sales and about the same amount as brought in by iPod sales. My rough estimates from the following graph give about 2.5 billion for iTunes, 2.5 for iPod, 7.5 for CPU, 7.5 for iPad, 25 billion for iPhone.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/24/apple-reports-best-quarter-ever-in-q1-2012-13-06-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/
They seem to have had a total of 46 billion of total revenue, and 13 billion in net profit. Even if all of the 2.5 billion of iTunes was 100% profit (ie no costs associated with it), that is still only about 1/5th of their total net income. The iPhone would need to have profit rates of less than 10% to get its net profit to be about equal to this. That doesn't sound like "they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions".
Apple is making some pretty big bucks in their content sales businesses, but they still seem to be making the lion's share of their money in the hardware sales business.
Re:So much for returns. by LordKronos · 2012-01-24 16:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

They did - Samsung will open a new factory in Texas for producing the A? CPUs. Too bad that they will be shipped to China for final assembly as there are no suitable factories in US :)
Yep. As far as I know, there isn't a single US factory that houses 8000 "workers" on-site, ready to wake up in the middle of the night without warning and work a 12 hour shift with a biscuit and tea as their reward.
Oh, or did you mean that none of the factories are suitable because they all lack the necessary suicide nets?

Plus Nokia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 09:08 · Score: 1

Don't forget they also paid Nokia $500M up front plus ongoing royalties on top of what the rest of the case cost them.

Money not necessarily 'wasted' by DickBreath · 2012-01-24 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

A patent troll might consider that money a wise investment, even if it results in a court loss. It still creates Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

Also, going to court is always a risk. There is some chance that no matter how ridiculous its claims, Apple might win on some minor points, or even some major ones.

Consider this: Apple's Dutch Galaxy Tab ban shot down by The Hague

From that article:

After presiding over wrangles regarding the exact appearance of the two tablets and a thorough discussion of features such as dotted lines, screen icons and thickness of the device, the Dutch judge concluded that the Samsung Tablet gave a different overall impression to Apple's iPad.

Yes folks. Money spent to argue over dotted lines and thickness of the device.

Yes. Thickness of the device. A reasonable design goal to anyone.

That's like arguing infringement of a sports car design based on "goes fast".

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Skarecrow77 · 2012-01-24 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

at least they looked at the devices. If I recall, Germany provided an initial injunction based on a heavily photoshopped picture, provided by apple, showing the ipad vs galaxy tab that had the tab's dimensions grossly distorted and a non-standard home screen manipulated to appear as close to the ipad as possible.
The car equivilent wouldn't be "goes fast" it would be ferrari showing a simple photo of an F40 next to a lamborghini where the lambo's body has been completely removed and replaced with an F40 look-alike, painted with a ferrari factory color, and had ferrari-esque badges slapped on... except the whole lambo conversion was done by ferrari themselves in order to misrepresent the true appearance of the original car.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Forbman · 2012-01-24 10:19 · Score: 1

No, not a lamborghini, but a Pontiac Fiero, with a really bad body kit on it.
Or even better, a Geo Metro with a red rattle can paint job (or Maaco), you know, with overspray still on the tires, Ferrari F-40-lookalike wheel covers (maybe they're even spinners, too!), two Lee Press-on NACA Scoops on the hood, and some Firrari (yes, the misspelling is intentional) badges stuck on in various places with double-sided tape. And they even forgot to 'shop the "K&N Filter" & "Michael Jordan" stickers from the rear window. If you look close enough, you can at least see where they removed or 'shopped the Buick-esque stick-on vent "holes" from the front fender.
I'm sure pictures of the 2nd could be found on Jalopnik, Autoblog, etc...
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Skarecrow77 · 2012-01-24 10:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Not Trolling. Not FUD.
Yes, it was idiotic, but it did happen.
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Caught+Photoshopping+Galaxy+Tab+101+to+Look+Like+iPad+for+Lawsuit/article22459.htm
http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/apple-could-have-given-faulty-evidence-in-euro-samsung-case/
http://pauloflaherty.com/2011/08/16/was-apple-caught-fudging-the-facts/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/apples-evidence-in-european-galaxy-tab-injunction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/
do you need more?
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Idbar · 2012-01-24 13:08 · Score: 1

Also, making 46b revenue in the last quarter with 16b. profit, I guess 0.1b is just pocket change.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by psiclops · 2012-01-24 14:36 · Score: 1

you've posted that link at least four times in this thread.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by PaladinAlpha · 2012-01-24 14:52 · Score: 2

And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Of course, I've already read the whole thing, and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth. There was neither. Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed, Samsung's label obscured, the front-facing camera obscured, and the software display comprehensively modified from default. It was the only image to show the two devices directly from the front; all other images were at odd angles. It was, in a word, completely dishonest.
Keep fooling yourself, though. Support that company that sues based on decades-old design ideas. Demand that there be no competition to a company that allows only one combination of hardware and software. I almost wish it would succeed, just so you could see the dark ages it would create.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Theaetetus · 2012-01-24 15:17 · Score: 2

And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Page 29.

Of course, I've already read the whole thing,
Apparently not page 29. Also, you read German?

and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth.
Now, you're just being rude. Which is unconscionable for someone who has apparently never read page 29 of the document, and has also apparently "lied through his teeth" about having done so. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you know.

There was neither.
See, e.g., page 29.

Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed
Not really an "also" considering that I expressly noted that they changed the aspect ratio, and they mention doing so in the text.

Samsung's label obscured
There was no front label, as shown by the other photographs in the document. See, for example, pages 21 and 26. If you really have the document, that is. On the plus side, they're just photographs, so even though you can't read German, you'll be able to clearly see the lack of label.

the front-facing camera obscured
The front-facing camera is visible in the infamous side-by-side shot on page 28. It is directly to the left of the "Pulse" label under the Pulse app icon. Perhaps you're not actually looking at the document?

and the software display comprehensively modified from default.
[Citation needed].

It was the only image to show the two devices directly from the front; all other images were at odd angles.
False. See page 23 for a glorious full-frontal photo of the Galaxy Tab 10.1

It was, in a word, completely dishonest.
Based on the fact that everything you've claimed didn't exist does exist in the document on the above-noted page numbers, there's someone here being dishonest... but it sure isn't either me or Apple.

Keep fooling yourself, though. Support that company that sues based on decades-old design ideas. Demand that there be no competition to a company that allows only one combination of hardware and software. I almost wish it would succeed, just so you could see the dark ages it would create.
Perhaps you'd like to try again? Your rant will be so much more credible if you weren't wrong about literally everything else in your post.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by PaladinAlpha · 2012-01-24 16:04 · Score: 1

Funny, I'm still not seeing any notification that the image was modified. Here's the text from page 29:

(vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays.Darüber hinaus kopiert das Tab 10.1 das markante dünne Profil des iPad 2.
Glaubhaftmachung:
1. Augenscheinnahme des iPad 2, bereits vorgelegt als
2. Augenscheinnahme eines Galaxy Tab 10.1 erworbenaußerhalb Europas (einschließlich Verpackung), bereitsvorgelegt als
3. Vergleich derProdukte, vorgelegt als
Der Gesamteindruck der Vorderseite ist fast identisch; es gibt keine Unterschiede, die dasTab 10.1 als ein Produkt erkennen lassen, welches sich vom iPad 2 von vorneunterscheidet.
Allerdings ist die Ähnlichkeit nicht auf die Vorderseite beschränkt, sondern erstreckt sich auchauf die Rückseite, die Unter- und Oberseite. Die Ansichten der Ober- und Unterseite zeigen,dass die Ecken in beiden Designs gerundet sind und dass die Breite sich von vorne nach hintensanft verengt. In der Seitenansicht ist das Produkt - wie das Design - eine hohe und dünnerechteckige Form mit abgerundeten Ecken oben und unten; das Rechteck verengt sich sanft vonder Vorderseite zu der relativ flachen Rückseite. Des weiteren haben die Antragsgegnerinnen,wie aus
ersichtlich, eine weiße/metallische Rückseite für ihr Produkt gewähltwie sie die Antragstellerin für ihre iPad und iPad 2 – Produkte verwendet hat. Keines deranderen Produkte die mit der
vorgelegt wurden, weist eine solche Farbe auf.Schließlich ist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Abmessungen der zweiProdukte sehr ähnlich sind (iPad 2 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 241,2 x 185,7 x 8,8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 257 x 175 x 8,6 mm). Es kommt hinzu, dass das Kopieren sich auchauf die Produktverpackung erstreckt – nicht nur im Hinblick auf die Farbe und den äußerlichenGesamteindruck, sondern auch im Hinblick auf die Präsentation der Innenverpackung. DerGesamteindruck der Produkte ist daher fast identisch und das Design des Galaxy Tablet 10.1erweckt deshalb keinen anderen Gesamteindruck.
I'll save myself some time and just do Google Translate:

(vi) if the product is turned on, colored copied icons within the Displays.Darüber addition, the Tab 10.1 the distinctive thin profile of the second iPad
substantiation:
First Visual inspection of the iPad 2, already presented as
Second Visual inspection of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 acquired except within Europe (including packaging), as previously submitted
Third DerProdukte comparison, presented as
The overall impression of the front is almost identical, there are no differences which can be seen as a product dasTab 1.10, which differs from the front of iPad 2.
However, the similarity is not limited to the front, but extends auchauf the back, bottom and top. The views of the top and bottom show that the corners are rounded in both design and that the width narrows from front to back gently. The side view is the product - like the design - a high and thin rectangular shape with rounded corners above and below; the rectangle narrows gently Vonder front to the back of relatively flat. Furthermore, the defendants invited, as from
has used products - can be seen, a white / metallic back for their product, they gewähltwie the applicant for their iPad, and iPad second None of the products with the deranderen
were presented, has such a color is auf.Schließlich in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (width / height / depth): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm). It added that copying is auchauf extends the product packaging - not only in terms of color and the consolidated his impressive appearance, but also with regard to the presentation of the inner packaging. DerGesamteindruck the products is therefore almost identical and the d
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by Theaetetus · 2012-01-24 16:19 · Score: 1

You originally:

And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate. Of course, I've already read the whole thing, and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth. There was neither.
You now:

iPad 2 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 241,2 x 185,7 x 8,8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 257 x 175 x 8,6 mm
Most people would realize (a) they were wrong; (b) they called someone a liar in error; and (c) they should apologize for both a and b.
And then there's you.
Anyways, without wasting more time on someone who calls people names and refuses to admit mistakes, I'll simply note that:
(i) your Google translation is not fully accurate, and if you spoke German - as you implied when you falsely claimed to have read the document - you'd realize that;
(ii) you've quietly tip-toed away from all of your other proven false claims: "Samsung label obscured"; "front-facing camera obscured"; "software comprehensively modified";
(iii) instead of refuting any of the evidence presented that you were incorrect, you instead move the goal posts and claim that only one page out of 44 pages "was the important page". One page, it should be noted, that merely discussed the UI, which was irrelevant to one of the design patents at issue on the case design; and
(iv) you wrap up your factually deficient and logically invalid post with more insults, because as a troll, that's all you've got. You're nothing more than a waste of time.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by PaladinAlpha · 2012-01-24 16:29 · Score: 2

Oh boy, I love quote games. Here's you circa not too long ago, before I joined this discussion:

but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where was the image marked at? Where was the explanation?
Here, let me quote it again:

but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where exactly was that? Hmm?
Oh, and blah blah...Obviously the translation is not fully accurate -- I've got better things to do than transcribe documents when I can copy-paste. The rest is just you trying to smokescreen. Apple forging images in a legal document is indefensible. You having your fingers in your ears won't change that. It must be frustrating to not be able to change reality just by not liking it.
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-27 13:24 · Score: 1

It's an OCD of mine.

Says it is money well spent by Sez+Zero · 2012-01-24 09:11 · Score: 1

From original TFA:

Eventually everyone is going to settle. (Steve Jobs may have wanted to drive Android out of existence, but that’s probably not going to happen.) The question is what kind of terms will everyone get in these settlements. The court fights are really just a way of jockeying for position and trying to gain leverage for the great settlement that is yet to come.

In that sense, whatever Apple is spending on legal fees is probably money well spent.

Numbers by Barny · 2012-01-24 09:12 · Score: 1

Where the hell did they get that number from?

I really hope they are not including the costs of their lawyers, lawyers that will be on retainer and paid regardless if they were fighting a court case or not.

The source gives no justification to the number, it quite literally, as we Aussies would put it, 'pulled it out their arse'.

--
...
/me sighs

Re:Numbers by nomadic · 2012-01-24 09:22 · Score: 2

That's not how it works; you pay a little down to put a lawyer on retainer so when you have to litigate they are available and ready to start right away. Once they start litigating they'll bill you for the time worked and that will typically dwarf the original retainer by several orders of magnitude.
Re:Numbers by CastrTroy · 2012-01-24 09:37 · Score: 1

Very true indeed. Large companies have lawyers on staff looking for work to do. It's more like the lawyers that they have on staff are just looking to make themselves look relevant. If the lawyers don't have anything to do, you can cut back on the number of lawyers you have on retainer.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.

Thermonuclear War... by 787style · 2012-01-24 09:15 · Score: 5, Funny

"I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs

$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.

Re:Thermonuclear War... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 10:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Steve was never one to let the facts get in the way of his view of the universe.
Re:Thermonuclear War... by 4phun · 2012-01-24 14:45 · Score: 1

"I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs
$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.
Wrong, $100 million down over $99.9 billion to go.
Apple just picked up a lot more cash in the last quarter. They have almost a hundred billion in cash right now.
Awesome sales and profits!
Re:Thermonuclear War... by ignavus · 2012-01-24 19:04 · Score: 1

"I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs
$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.
Um, Steve is no longer around to spend ANY more pennies from Apple's banked billions ... so I'd say he's missed the target.

--
I am anarch of all I survey.

True Evil - Apple by Spiked_Three · 2012-01-24 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

This article caught me at a good (or bad depending on how you look at it) time. I am so sick of Apple fanatics and how they are willing destroying the personal computer industry. They hold their limp wrists high (no intent to offend gays, but it is such a fitting description) in celebration of their superior operating system, with no clue as to how they are being brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights.

I gave in a year ago after a stroke and bought an iPad. I loved it, supported it for a year. Then one day Apple decided I was a security risk. Now whenever I turn on my iPad it says it has been 'locked for security reasons'. There is no way to get anything resembling technical support since I didn't choose to pay their extortion, err, support plan. The web has no help. And I'm stuck with a $599 soft drink coaster, and not a very good one at that..

Now, has anyone read about their plot to hold the education system at gunpoint? Give away authoring tools, promise the world, and hahahaha, only sell through Apple, requiring all schools to buy iPads for every student, every time Apple needs a cash influx and upgrades the iPad. That borders on illegal criminal scheming, and due the stupid nature of our government, will probably work..

Fuck Apple, please let them burn in hell.

--
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.

Re:True Evil - Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 09:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yep. Absolutely, utterly impossible to get anything resembling tech support. A Google search for "ipad locked for security reasons" turns up this Apple knowledge base article [http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2446], titled "Apple ID: "This Apple ID has been disabled for security reasons" alert appears". The article tells you how to reset your password.
It's an absolute shame there's no way to get this information from anybody, much less Apple.
Re:True Evil - Apple by WankersRevenge · 2012-01-24 09:39 · Score: 1

Have you ever thought about making a reservation at an Apple store and having them take a look at it in person? Or, if you're too far from a store, mail your hardware to them for inspection? I've needed their assistance a couple times and they've always been very accommodating and helpful.
Re:True Evil - Apple by Spiked_Three · 2012-01-24 09:47 · Score: 1

Yes, quite honestly, i've though about it. It just happened, thus the comment about timing. But like I said earlier, I suffered from a stroke and getting out is not something I do a lot, for health reasons. And I have decided when I do go out, I will looking to buy an alternative. I never liked Apple's take over the world by brainwashing philosophy, and the is an iPad 1, showing it's age and not worth the effort. But thanks for at least not saying it's all my fault, and posting as an AC, such a fitting tittle to the others.

--
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Re:True Evil - Apple by Sponge+Bath · 2012-01-24 10:44 · Score: 1

...destroying the personal computer industry ...brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights ...plot to hold the education system at gunpoint
Hyperbole much? For someone complaining about fanaticism, you sound completely crazed. All that because you couldn't figure out how to use an iPad? Yeesh.
Re:True Evil - Apple by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-24 10:56 · Score: 1

Uh... you'd rather Apple not introduce their iBooks product at all? Schools can still use *textbooks* you know. It's not as if Apple is taking away all alternatives which have worked for the thousands of years schools have existed.
Re:True Evil - Apple by sqldr · 2012-01-24 10:59 · Score: 1

I'm still trying to find the option for "please don't lock my property". Until I find an easy way to stop a 3rd party interfering with my device, I call it difficult to use.

--
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Re:True Evil - Apple by gmhowell · 2012-01-24 13:15 · Score: 1

Let go of your nerdrage and hatred. Might lower your BP enough to avoid a second stroke.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:True Evil - Apple by 4phun · 2012-01-24 14:37 · Score: 1

This article caught me at a good (or bad depending on how you look at it) time. I am so sick of Apple fanatics and how they are willing destroying the personal computer industry. They hold their limp wrists high (no intent to offend gays, but it is such a fitting description) in celebration of their superior operating system, with no clue as to how they are being brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights
F--- Apple, please let them burn in hell.
I wonder if you have the courage to feel as strongly about Google's move today limiting all your online privacy rights if you use any Google product including Android?
You as well as the rest of us have only until March 1, 2012 to think it through.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/25/google-merge-user-data-privacy?newsfeed=true
Re:True Evil - Apple by Spiked_Three · 2012-01-27 18:02 · Score: 1

Ok, a few days later and i'm not so outraged over being denied use of my iPad. I still hate the idea, and replaced it with an android tablet.

So let's take a minute if any of the Apple geniuses care to comment;

What really happened, and i'll admit to probably knowing the reason all along, and being pissed at apple's response was, I installed a new hard drive on my windows PC. after months without connecting my iPad, I finally got around to it, and of course had to re-install iTunes. On first connect, indeed my Apple ID was locked. Had ANYONE entered an incorrect password? No. Now you can claim all you want that Apple did not lock the hardware, but the hardware ONLY runs iOS which depends on iTunes - so it was useless - power on and it says locked, sure the hardware got power but who cares? It was unusable, it must be connected to iTunes to be used.

If Apple offered any explanation, offered any path to fixing the problem other than saying iForgot my password, or that there was a security concern I might have played along. But I find their arrogance unacceptable.

So then I tried to delete my credit card info from iTunes, not allowed. Then I tried deleting my iTunes account, not allowed. Again, arrogance.

Stick to the facts, not guesswork. Why should this be normal/acceptable?

I am forced to have an iTunes account with credit card information, on an Apple account I do not want. Screw that, screw them, and screw their defenders.

--
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.

Grandstanding for future settlements by Lugor · 2012-01-24 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

What the articles don't point out is this could be all grandstanding and positioning by all parties in a future patent settlement. Current patent laws and process allows too much overlap; they all virtually infringe on each others patent. They will all have to settle at some point, so look at the $100 million not as court costs but investment in future patent royalties or down-payment on future royalty payout.

So for $100m by SlippyToad · 2012-01-24 09:22 · Score: 1

Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?

Is that crazy?

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

Re:So for $100m by teg · 2012-01-24 10:10 · Score: 2
Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?
Is that crazy?
1. No. The cost difference is much, much higher. 65 USD/phone has been mentioned - about 2.5 billion USD just last quarter.
2. More importantly, the skills needed don't exist and you have a manufacturing ecosystem in the area - almost all the things in the iPhone are made there too, making logistics[1] much easier. Also, using iSlaves adds tremendous flexibility
3. Apple transformed the mobile market with the iPhone - just look at phones before and after. Protecting as much as possible of this - while taking advantage of other transformations being available RAND - is what they want. The lawsuits is about stopping companies copying Apple, not about getting a share like Microsoft is happy doing.
[1] Logistics is where Apple really makes their money. Few products, little shelf time, no inventory. The actual product is a premium product at a premium price, true - but that costs in build quality and support as well. By keeping few product lines, reusing the same components and being the masters of supply chain management their profits go from "OK" to "incredible". Just witness how much trouble others have in matching the iPad price.

Why does the Beatles record label hate copying so? by phonewebcam · 2012-01-24 09:23 · Score: 1

Oh, wait ... you're talking of some other company which, err, copied their name. I'll get my coat...

Apple *is* helping American industry by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-01-24 09:25 · Score: 2

So, they don't manufacture iStuff thingies in the US. But look how they are helping to build up the strategic American lawsuit industry! The US will be the world's leader and #1 in the lawsuit business!

No need to invade Third World countries any more . . . sue the pants of them!

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Fear of Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 09:27 · Score: 1

Everyone also forgot how different things were before Karl Benz. Good thing he sued Henry Ford out of existence and nipped that whole competitive market thingy in the bud early on...

/car analogy

Re:-1: Troll by Spiked_Three · 2012-01-24 09:37 · Score: 1

And fuck all the Apple fanboys modding anything down that disagrees with their brainwashing.

--
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.

Re:Fear of Apple by Terrasque · 2012-01-24 09:55 · Score: 5, Informative

It seems everyone's forgotten how different things were before the iPhone. All this "obvious" shit wasn't obvious at all back then, and it was only a few years ago.

Well, you got LG Prada (came out before iPhone, had virtual touch buttons), Samsung F700 (slightly after iPhone), and then you of course got IBM Simon... Launched in 1993, had touch screen controls, a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. And it had less physical buttons than the iPhone.

So... I'd say that all that obvious shit was pretty obvious back then, but the hardware was lacking a bit. Being the first in a race doesn't mean you invented running :)

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Apple store = NO BUENO by broseidon · 2012-01-24 09:59 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, every trip I've ever had to make to the Apple Store resulted in heartache.. It's like a bad help desk line for any half-competent user. The final straw happened when I had an issue with my iPhone a little over a year ago.. a couple hard resets and eventually restoring it to factory defaults did not correct the problem. Made an appointment, waited 15 minutes after my scheduled time, was directed to an iPhone "genius", who asked me if I'd hard reset it or restored it, and then told me she couldn't help me any further, and I needed to speak with an "iPhone expert".. and waited another 20 minutes to have a guy simply pitch me purchasing a refurb one for $200. Needless to say, I sold it for parts and went Android. Haven't looked back since.

Re:Apple store = NO BUENO by ganjadude · 2012-01-24 14:58 · Score: 1

so what you are saying is that the apple "genius"s are nothing more than restock boys and salesmen?

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Apple store = NO BUENO by jo_ham · 2012-01-24 15:13 · Score: 1

So, iPhone not under warranty then. If it was under warranty they'd have just given you a new one.
If it's broken (what did you expect them to do purely in software?) it's such a small device, with few pieces, that any hardware failure is just more economic to swap for a new phone (and cheaper to sell you a refurb than run a repair on the one you own). They'll then take all the broken phones and repair and refurbish them as appropriate in bulk, rather than doing them on a case by case basis.
Re:Apple store = NO BUENO by jo_ham · 2012-01-24 15:16 · Score: 1

Of course - when has that ever been in doubt? They're just store members, with some training on hardware and software problems - like "the geek squad" or "the tech guys" in other branded stores.
You can lampoon them for the branding, but they're just staff doing the best they can. They do repair hardware too, but in the case of phones it is much more economic to give the customer a new one (or sell them a new one if they are out of warranty) than it is to repair them individually. They will get repaired, just in a central location - they don't landfill the broken ones.

Meanwhile Apple 1Q results soar... by Cutting_Crew · 2012-01-24 10:01 · Score: 1

beyond wall street expectations. Do you think that $100 million really matters to them?

Why do we make this even possible? by laughingcoyote · 2012-01-24 10:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?

There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.

Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.

Re:Why do we make this even possible? by Theaetetus · 2012-01-24 13:15 · Score: 1

Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?
There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.
Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?
Only in hindsight, and that's not allowed when determining obviousness for patents. To show obviousness, you need to find references that existed prior to the patent that, alone or in combination, taught or suggested each and every element of the patent claims. If you can't do that, then it's just as wrong as convicting someone of a crime without evidence, based solely on a gut feeling.

Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · 2012-01-24 10:09 · Score: 1

Abolish copyrights and patents - government regulations at work,
and that's all I have to say on this topic.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Chilling effect by Pieroxy · 2012-01-24 10:22 · Score: 1

Exactly my thought. Probably some. How much we will never know.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

That's nice of Apple . . . by dogsbreath · 2012-01-24 10:44 · Score: 1

. . . to bring clarity to the market no matter what the cost to them or their competitors. ($100 million for apple . . . how much did this force their competition to spend on legal fees, research etc.).

Clearly a company that has ideals and values, and is willing to stand up for them.

Jobs' sold gold iCasket by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-01-24 10:45 · Score: 1

With patented rounded corners cost a lot........gotta make up for it somewhere, right?

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Re:Android is a bad ripoff anyways by teg · 2012-01-24 10:51 · Score: 1

There was a time from 2005-2007 when everyone knew that a iPod touch shaped phone would come out.

iPod touch was released sometime after the iPhone - at the time, they were selling iPod classics and Nanos. Phones sucked ( like my N95, or anything else Symbian/windows mobile based), and touch screen phones used styluses.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-24 11:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Chilling effect by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-24 11:17 · Score: 1

And did it delay the release of any competitors' products? Being first to market, even by a week, can be worth a huge amount of money...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Seriously by Trogre · 2012-01-24 11:29 · Score: 2

Can the rest of you now please stop giving these clowns money to further abuse our legal system?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Seriously by Tim+C · 2012-01-24 23:01 · Score: 1

Oh yes, the "hate the game not the player" argument.

It's bullshit when applied to relationships and it's bullshit here. If the players all stopped, there'd be no game; just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should (and definitely doesn't mean that you must).

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

iforgot.apple.com by alispguru · 2012-01-24 11:46 · Score: 1

Have you tried iforgot.apple.com?

First hit on Google from iPad "locked for security reasons"...

--

To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.

So? by nurb432 · 2012-01-24 12:14 · Score: 1

Business sue other business they think are infringing on their products/ip/etc.. Apple is a big company, so it will be big numbers.

*yawn*

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Fear of Apple by psiclops · 2012-01-24 14:45 · Score: 2

as per my reply to your comment somewhere else, the LG Prada's design was unveiled 4 months before the first iPhone was unveiled.

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig

Re:Fear of Apple by ganjadude · 2012-01-24 14:55 · Score: 1

plus we could look at palm pilots since the 90s and say that adding a phone to a PDA was eventually going to happen. My HP handheld from either 2000 or 2001 had touch screen (stylus, but touch screen)1 button center in the bottom and looked quite a bit like an iphone

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:-1: Troll by jo_ham · 2012-01-24 15:26 · Score: 1

Perhaps they're just modding it down because it's trolling?

I mean, I'm willing to listen to a reasoned argument that the GP post should not receive a troll moderation - I'd be interested to hear your points.

I disagree with mod-bombing - all it does is create echo chambers with identical opinions.

What if... by frrrp · 2012-01-24 16:14 · Score: 1

Could you imagine the nightmare if Apple patented the qwerty keyboard?

--
smilies are for reetards

chicken feed by pbjones · 2012-01-24 18:20 · Score: 1

100 million is chicken feed if it stops or slows sales of rival products. This sort of money is spent by every major company in courts around the world.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Where's the source for this? by metacell · 2012-01-24 20:36 · Score: 1

There doesn't seem to be a real source for the claim. TFA refers to a blog where a "rumour" is discussed about Apple having spent $100 million on patent litigation. When TFA is quoted, the rumour suddenly turns into fact.

Re:Where's the source for this? by metacell · 2012-01-24 20:52 · Score: 1

P.S. Tracing back to Dan Lyons' blog, we read:

But a person close to the situation tells me there’s a rumor going around among the lawyers that Apple spent $100 million just on its first set of claims against HTC.
Who knows if it’s true, but if so, Apple didn’t get a lot for its money.
So Slashdot is reporting on an article that reports on a blogger who claims someone told him there was a rumour going around about something (but he has no idea if it's true). Even if we use Dan Lyons' blog as the source, we're at least three steps away from someone who potentially knows anything.

disc shaped phone? by mcn · 2012-01-24 20:41 · Score: 1

Someone or some company should probably make a phone that is circular in shape like a disc, and all the GUI so far (that runs on a squarish screen) will probably no longer apply.... or will it still?

Re:Fear of Apple by adolf · 2012-01-25 02:05 · Score: 1

we could look at palm pilots since the 90s and say that adding a phone to a PDA was eventually going to happen

It did happen.

--
Kid-proof tablet..

Re:-1: Troll by jo_ham · 2012-01-25 04:43 · Score: 1

Interesting, given that I've been on the site for more than 10 years and have plenty of criticisms of Apple.

I think the whole "person X is a shill for company Y because they have a different opinion to me" stuff on slashdot is just weak.

Also, you forgot to log in. Try not to forget next time.

Re:Fear of Apple by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-27 13:20 · Score: 1

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Palm CEO Ed Colligan, commenting on then-rumored Apple iPhone, 16 Nov 2006

Not to mention the Palm Pilot was based on the Apple Newton.

Re:Fear of Apple by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-27 13:22 · Score: 1

*facepalm* It wasn't even officially announced until December 15, and the first official image showed up on January 18. And the Prada was a piece of junk feature phone. It SUCKED. Have you ever even seen it? It was as bad as the LG Dare. A worthless feature phone incapable of the numerous things the iPhone brought to the table.

Re:Fear of Apple by psiclops · 2012-01-30 23:50 · Score: 1

perhaps read my linked reply where they won a design award for the phone in september 2006

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Has Spent More Than $100 Million Suing Android Manufacturers

125 of 184 comments (clear)