Push Email Suspended On iPhones In Germany

New submitter elashish14 tips this news, snipped from Ars Technica: "Apple has been forced to disable push e-mail delivery for iCloud and MobileMe users in Germany this week. The move is thanks to a recent injunction awarded to Motorola as part of the ongoing patent dispute between the two smartphone makers.... The patent at issue relates to older pager designs, but Motorola was able to convince a German court that it applied to Apple's implementation of push e-mail that syncs across devices via iCloud. The injunction went into effect on Thursday of this week, requiring Apple to disable push e-mail syncing in Germany."

Comments

Truce

[sg_oneill]

Yet another way the consumer is being raped by this senseless patent war. Call a truce you loopy money hungry bastards..

Re:Truce

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that their paying customers end up taking most of the hits at the moment, but i think all these petty squabbles between massive corporations are the best way towards positive patent/copyright reform.

Courts the world over seem to be used not to settle wrongs but simply as a scoring system. Corporation A wins a couple lawsuits and injunctions in Europe, Corp B wins some in the states, Corp A fights back and gets some in Australia, Corp B then tries its luck in Asia. I don't have any figures, but i wouldn't be surprised if all these corporations put twice as much money in their legal department as they do in R&D. Which kinda makes me wonder if we can still consider them in the technology sector.

I can't believe some judge hasn't just said "enough of this shit" and sentenced the board members of all corporations involved to a mandatory year in pre-school.

Rulings like these, that disable features that many customers rely on, are guaranteed to annoy the regular mom&pop users (who generally consider copyright/patent related discussion to be irrelevant to them). Combined with the people in the tech sector who actually still try to develop things, the hippies and the nerd crowd that might create a large enough group to cause some uproar and start the process of redesigning the laws regarding IP.

Re:Truce

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

The weirdest thing about this is, that there are no software patents in Germany.

I guess that said software patents might qualify as "regular" patents since there are phones involved.

Re:Truce

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point? You , me and everyone here has "read" the verbose, archaic, purposely overdone and almost obfuscatory text of some patent or another. We want to know what the patent does using the hallowed principle of "If it's quacks, it's a duck".

Automatically 'pushing' messages from one computer to another is something a "practitioner skilled in the art" (mostly anyone here) can do and consider obvious.

So no, while I could be wrong, I concur with the guy you're responding to. And I haven't read it either

Re:Truce

[sulimma]

You can patent the "push e-mail to device instead of polling" part, because it does not relate to software. You could implement it with manual labor and pidgeons and would still be violating the patent.

What you can't patent in Germany is algorithm, so a claim that says "push e-mail where the e-mail headers are processed via regular expressions" would no be valid.

what is stranger is that if the patent is very broad, it could be invalid because regular letters, faxes, teletypes, etc. have all been based on pushing the message to the receiver so there should be prior art.

Re:Truce

[grahammm]

Automatically 'pushing' messages from one computer to another is something a "practitioner skilled in the art" (mostly anyone here) can do and consider obvious.

Which is what email has been doing since at least 1982 when RFC821 was published.

Re:Truce

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

I am not completely sure about that. AFAIK you can not patent anything involving only "pidgeons and labor" - as it would be quite the same thing as patenting a plain algorythm. What I know fr sure is that there needs to be an implementation in form of a machine or device which can then be patented. I think that's actually what the smartphone are considered in this case.

Re:Truce

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, self was patented many eons ago:

Every person is sole owner of their self, no person can do anything on behalf of another person or group of people without first getting their express self-given permission. ie. a country cannot go to war on behalf of it's people, a president cannot speak on behalf of the country's people, a corporation cannot make a purchase on behalf of it's employees... etc... etc. Anyone who engages in such activity, as ultimately the decision can always be traced back to one or a group of humans, what was done 'on behalf,' instead of being pegged to the selves of those it was done on behalf of, it will instead be pegged to the person or persons soul(s) who falsely authorized and executed 'on behalf' of others.

Re:Truce

[erroneus]

Yes, but that's SMTP not any client side protocol. The client side is a different story.

I don't care about the outcome in this one. I only hope that it hurts badly for one side or the other. One thing seems to becoming obvious -- Germany is the new East Texas.

I just hope the families of various politicians are interrupted, annoyed or iritated by all of this so that attention to the issue. Politicians only care about what affects them and that's about the extent of it. They listen to the highest bidder after that and we already know who the highest bidders are. I only hope it "gets too stupid, even for the politicians to tolerate."

Re:Truce

[zigurat667]

It's not about push e-mail but about status synchronization between multiple devices. See page 13 of the patent.

Re:Truce

[snowgirl]

Funny, the German wikipedia disagrees with you. To be clear, they don't say all software is patentable, but they do explain how computer-timed ignitions are patentable software.

Re:Truce

[Deorus]

Why are you linking to a Slashdot story while making claims about the German Wikipedia?

Re:Truce

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What is the point? You , me and everyone here has "read" the verbose, archaic, purposely overdone and almost obfuscatory text of some patent or another.

Yeah, whenever I read any patent, it reminds me of the faux contract distributed with the amazing Guild of Thieves game by Magnetic Scrolls. :)

Re:Truce

[oakgrove]

She malformed the link and when you do that slash code mangles it like that for you. It happens to all of us at least once eventually.

Re:Truce

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's because these days, when browsers hide the protocol-colon-slash-slash part of the URI, it's all to easy to omit it while copying. The browser should add it again while copying, but that somehow seems to depend on the way you selected the URI. Happened to me a few times as well. Damn these browser dumbifications.

Re:Truce

[sonamchauhan]

It's just the one computer (a pager) telling the server the status of a message ( it's been read), then the server automatically telling another pager (belonging to the same user) to mark the message as 'read'.

Like IMAP.

  SAP GUI told users they had sessions logged on elsewhere, back in 2002.

http://sap.ittoolbox.com/groups/technical-functional/sap-basis/audit-of-multiple-logons-108489

Obvious.

Re:Truce

[shoehornjob]

Simple solution = Go to the cloud. LOL seriously why rely on something like pushing email to multiple devices when you can just log into your web mail site and get it there? Sometimes people just make things too difficult.

Re:Truce

[Anonymous Coward]

For when you don't have internet. Enjoy your house made of glass.

Re:Truce

[Hentes]

Hell no! Let those assholes who managed to lobby some faulty software patents through reap what they have sown. Let them go nuclear and hurt each other as bad as they can. And perhaps if enough consumers get hurt some people might start to question how did this happen.

Re:Truce

[nurb432]

I don't care about the outcome in this one. I only hope that it hurts badly for one side or the other. One thing seems to becoming obvious -- Germany is the new East Texas.

The outcome will be that the consumers will get the shaft.

Re:Truce

[noh8rz2]

well, that's why push email is better than webmail. you get an alert immediately when you get a message, instead of logging in occasionally. Imagine if you had to log in to check if you got any text messages?

Re:Truce

[Roger Lindsjo]

Practically what was said. "it hurts badly for one side".

Re:Truce

[Rich0]

You can patent the "push e-mail to device instead of polling" part, because it does not relate to software. You could implement it with manual labor and pidgeons and would still be violating the patent.

There isn't anything that a computer can do that can't be implemented with a sufficient number of people enacting some process manually. The most trivial example of this is to take every transistor in a CPU and tell somebody to raise their right hand whenever two other particular people have their right hands raised...

Re:Truce

[Mex5150]

Well it is nice to see Apple get a taste of their own medicine after the photoshopped documents they got away with, but it is getting way beyond a joke now. These patents are meant to inspire innovation, not stifle it.
~Mex

Re:Truce

[Gonoff]

Like polling for messages? Just set the client to send a small packet every 60 seconds and the mail server to respond if there is.

That is not exactly a new idea and it is the mail client pulling.

Re:Truce

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Enjoy your 1 hour battery life.

Re:Truce

[noh8rz2]

um, duh, no. first, polling only works when the mail client is open, while push is OS level. second, you really want 100 million iPhones polling every minute? better to push a message when it comes in.

Re:Truce

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If there is any justice, parent post really should exhonerate me from my -1 moderation.

Re:Truce

[Miamicanes]

"push" email is fundamentally different from "push" web content.

Incoming phone calls & SMS messages don't get "broadcasted" to phones in the area -- the individual phones actively poll the network for incoming calls & SMS every couple of seconds. The phone broadcasts its poll request to the tower, and the tower replies back with a ~160-byte reply that indicates whether there's an incoming phone call, or the content of a text message, or a code that lets the phone know that there's content being pushed that's available to be fetched.

I'm not 100% sure about GSM networks, but on CDMA networks, the phone can poll for incoming calls/SMS faster & with less power than it takes to establish a full-blown active EVDO data session. I believe a similar situation exists with respect to legacy GSM vs UMTS/HSPA. SO... instead of taking the time and power to establish a data connection so the mail app can poll the mail server, push email allows the mail server to notify the mobile network that one or more new messages have arrived. The next time the phone polls the network for incoming calls, it gets a reply that means, "no incoming calls, no incoming SMS, but there's at least one new email waiting on the server". The phone gets the reply, sees the "new email" flag, and THEN launches the mail client, which brings up a full data connection and updates itself from the server.

In other words, instead of having to keep waking up the phone, establishing a full data connection, and keeping the phone awake long enough to poll the mail server, you can keep the phone mostly asleep, and wait until the network notifies you that there's a new message before going to the trouble of contacting the mail server itself.

"Push" in this context is also different from using persistent UDP sockets (the way IMAP NOTIFY does).

When in doubt as to whether or not something is "genuinely" push or not, it helps to look at the pushed payload itself. If the pushed payload is just a notification that something is waiting on the server, it's probably "real" push. On the other hand, if you're actively polling a server for the message itself, it's probably not "real" push.

Re:Truce

[mjwx]

Yet another way the consumer is being raped by this senseless patent war. Call a truce you loopy money hungry bastards..

Tell that to Apple.

None of this happened until they decided to start suing anyone with rounded corners, demanding injunctions rather then asking for reasonable licensing fees. Before then everyone negotiated with each other for use of their patents.

Re:Truce

[Anonymous Coward]

You can patent the "push e-mail to device instead of polling" part, because ....snip....

what is stranger is that if the patent is very broad, it could be invalid because regular letters,
faxes, teletypes, etc. have all been based on pushing the message to the receiver so there should be prior art.

So are SMS text messages push or pull?
Is a voice mail telling/ requesting me to call home a pull or push message?

UUCICO had both push and pull. If I called you it would push from me to you and pull from
you to me. If you called me on your dime it would pull from me to you and push from you
to me. In the end it is a protocol design for moving data (aka a message)....

OMG, Gosh how long ago was a phone call a dime?

In for trouble

[mwvdlee]

Motorola better hope their old pagers didn't have any rounded corners, or they'll get retroactively sued for predicting future designs.

Re:In for trouble

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why, did they hire Samsung's former product designer?

Re:In for trouble

[Alwin Henseler]

Better: vibrating rounded corners!

No way Apple can claim that as their 'invention'.

Re:In for trouble

[philip.paradis]

See, what actually happened was Motorola engineers used faster than light neutrinos to retroactively prevent themselves from being retroactively sued, and thus nothing of the sort ever happened after it happened the first time it didn't happen.

I wish

[aglider]

the patent office and companies to focus on really new things, not just playing expensive games with patents.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent office is more or less rubber-stamping anything (sufficiently difficult to understand).

Any obvious erroneous patent that is discovered is simply refereed to as an single unfortunate incident where the patent examiner granted the patent incorrectly. The problem goes a bit deeper than that of course, but as long as the patent office can avoid looking at the real problem, the longer they can take pay checks (without having to consider moral implications).

Patents, much like copyright are a deal between the author/inventor and the general public. Patents, much like copyright is supposed to be beneficial for the general public.

Re:I wish

[Splab]

This is a really old and actually valid patent.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid nor wrong.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Apple shouldn't have tried to kill off its competitors with patent trolling.

Re:I wish

[Deorus]

Why is it valid in a place that does not recognize software patents when it's all about software?

How's this an insightful comment at all? Is it because it's anti-Apple? Because I don't see anything insightful here at all, just a completely unfounded claim.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is it valid in a place that does not recognize software patents when it's all about software?

It isn't about software. It's about a concrete implementation, therefore it doesn't qualify as a "software patent". See the preceding decision on:

    http://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?window=1&space=menu&content=treffer&action=bibdat&docid=DE000010232674A1

here:

    http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=51989&Frame=1

(previous links in german, sorry)

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

These is no such thing as a really old AND valid patent. The limit is 20 years.

only hope? not really.

[mr_walrus]

invalidating the patent is not apples only hope.
they could, heaven forbid, licence the patent for actual money.

Re:only hope? not really.

[qmaqdk]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure Apple had a bucket load of old Motorola pagers in the room when they were designed the push software for the iPhone.

Re:only hope? not really.

[maxwell demon]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure Apple had a bucket load of old Motorola pagers in the room when they were designed the push software for the iPhone.

Unlike copyright law, patent law doesn't require that you knew the patent for it to apply.

Re:only hope? not really.

[AuMatar]

Neither does copyright. Google George Harrison, MY Sweet Lord, and subconscious plagiarism

Re:only hope? not really.

[Totenglocke]

Ah, but you're assuming that Motorola would agree to license it. I'm not so sure they will since Apple's been hellbent on suing the competition out of existence instead of just beating them in the marketplace. I'm glad that the German courts are making Apple realize that karma's a real bitch.

Re:only hope? not really.

[maxwell demon]

Well, even for subconscious plagiarism you must have (subconsciously) known the original. The whole concept of clean-room reimplementation rests on the assumption that if you have never been exposed to the original, you cannot violate its copyright.

Unless the courts start claiming telepathic copyright violation, of course. But in that case, you should counter-sue for precognitive copyright violation: The earlier version is actually a copy of your version which was subconsciously foreknown.

Re:only hope? not really.

[sjames]

The truly crazy thing about that one is is spent a decade in court and by the time a judgement was rendered, due to a series of unrelated transactions in the meanwhile, Harrison was effectively suing himself.

Re:only hope? not really.

[sjames]

Given that it was 3 notes, it may not have been plagiarism at all.

Re:Don't worry

[maxwell demon]

That, or blame der juden...is Germany still doing that bit?

No, Germany stopped doing that about 67 years ago.

Germany is

[TrueSpeed]

the new US District Court of Eastern Texas.

Re:Germany is

[Forever Wondering]

the new US District Court of Eastern Texas.

Actually, Moto has been negotiating with Apple over this patent since 2007--to no avail.

Generally, the German courts have been much more level headed than Eastern Texas.

In this particular case, the German court determined that Apple had been negotiating in bad faith, and thus, Moto was entitled to a special injunction (because of Apple's egregious/scofflaw behavior). When Apple saw the handwriting on the wall, they rushed to [the court to] "pay up", but the court said "too little, too late".

Considering how much of a patent bully Apple is, this is one of the few places where they've been properly spanked.

How could anyone?

[macraig]

After observing the antics of Apple, Samsung, and Motorola in the past year, in particular, how could anyone wind up still believing that patents and copyrights promote creation or indeed help anyone but the assignees? When does the true reform begin?

Re:How could anyone?

[ThatsMyNick]

Patents do work, but not in the current form. If it were up to me, I would tentatively approve a patent, make it public and ask if there is any reason this should not become be a patent. Based on the response, the patent can be approved or rejected.

Re:How could anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The USPTO granted 247713 patents in 2011. That's 678 per day. The titles and abstracts are often purposefully formulated in a way that obfuscates their relevance. And correct interpretation of a patent often needs a patent lawyer. Who has the resources to check all of these patents if not the USPTO?

(AC because I have moderated.)

Re:How could anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

(AC because I have moderated.)

Not any more you haven't.

Apple begged for this

[samjam]

Apple are just new-boy idiots. Apple is claiming against Samsung for round corners, similar size, and a slide lock - that's the degree of apple innovation!

I can at least respect Samsung's patent somewhat as it actually does something and they might have actually been the first ones to do whatever they patented.

When apple lose more than they gained through this, we'll maybe start to see sense.

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

Apple are just new-boy idiots. Apple is claiming against Samsung for round corners, similar size, and a slide lock - that's the degree of apple innovation!

Oversimplification is, itself, a pretty idiotic thing to do.

I can at least respect Samsung's patent somewhat as it actually does something and they might have actually been the first ones to do whatever they patented.

This is not about Samsung...

Talk about being an idiot...

Re:Apple begged for this

[samjam]

Iit is a summary judgement based on extended observation, not an oversimplification.

This post (not mine) says it better: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2691519&cid=39157081

This is not an isolated story, it is one in a series, and it jolly well is about Samsung as they are the ones who have been long term abused by apple with "not real invention" patents and it's nice to seem then able to wield muscle against apple.

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

Iit is a summary judgement based on extended observation, not an oversimplification.

This post (not mine) says it better: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2691519&cid=39157081

This is not an isolated story, it is one in a series, and it jolly well is about Samsung as they are the ones who have been long term abused by apple with "not real invention" patents and it's nice to seem then able to wield muscle against apple.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything, or why Apple would accept to be extorted for a software patent in the EU.

Due to your inability to think rationally, I strongly advise you to at least exert some caution when insulting others.

Re:Apple begged for this

[samjam]

> I fail to see what that has to do with anything, or why Apple would accept to be extorted for a software patent in the EU.

Your lack of vision is your own problem

> Due to your inability to think rationally, I strongly advise you to at least exert some caution when insulting others.

I think you find that many people agree with the rational conclusion I posted here.

What I have not done is demonstrate the rational reasoning behind it, I suppose that most readers are able to draw similar conclusions from their own observations. You admit that you cannot see to do this, and I accept your admission.

I am hoping that Apple do refuse to accept to be extorted; I'm looking for a long painful fight to dissuade anyone from taking the same path that they have taken.

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

Your lack of vision is your own problem

Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case. ;)

I think you find that many people agree with the rational conclusion I posted here.

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

What I have not done is demonstrate the rational reasoning behind it, I suppose that most readers are able to draw similar conclusions from their own observations. You admit that you cannot see to do this, and I accept your admission.

But you still have burden of proof.

I am hoping that Apple do refuse to accept to be extorted; I'm looking for a long painful fight to dissuade anyone from taking the same path that they have taken.

They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.

Re:Apple begged for this

[samjam]

>>Your lack of vision is your own problem
>
>Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case. ;)

And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.

>>I think you find that many people agree with the rational conclusion I posted here.
>
>Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.

>>What I have not done is demonstrate the rational reasoning behind it, I suppose that
>>most readers are able to draw similar conclusions from their own observations.
>>You admit that you cannot see to do this, and I accept your admission.
>
>But you still have burden of proof.

I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation. My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.

>>I am hoping that Apple do refuse to accept to be extorted; I'm looking for a long painful fight to
>>dissuade anyone from taking the same path that they have taken.
>
>They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies
>have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.

My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung - either of which would count as severe wriggling.

I'm not trying to bankrupt Apple, just enjoy them getting some of what they've been dishing out.

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.

Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors. There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction, and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.

I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.

You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes it fallacious. As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.

I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation. My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.

In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now, or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not, Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.

My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung - either of which would count as severe wriggling.

I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring, because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience" perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online. Again, talk about being an idiot...

Re:Apple begged for this

[samjam]

>>And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.
>
>Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors.

Not the ones I'm arguing about or which have been in the news lately.

>There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction,

This is a nice use of the "no true scotsman" falacy. I was using true smartphones over 10 years ago and worked customising the first microsoft smartphone (appeal to authority there).

>and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to
>absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.

No but that's what you just did.

>> I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising
>> to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.
>
>You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes
> it fallacious.

There is no debate, only the one in your head

>As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now
>only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread
> and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.

I'm not making an argument (except now, about the fact that I'm not) as I said below

>>I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation.
>> My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers
>>from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest
>>non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch
>> them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.

>In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since
> you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse
> others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues
> to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known

I was talking about gen1 ipod battery issues

> that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so
> anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now,
> or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to
> get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from
> hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar
> to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not,
> Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.

Patent is not about design.

>> My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to
>> the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth
>> of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung -
>> either of which would count as severe wriggling.

>I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring,
> because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience"
> perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online.

Dude, it was a throw-away comment, summary of my opinion based on over 10 years of experience, 3 spent in the smartphone industry (appeal to authority)

> Again, talk about being an idiot...

Well for someone who wants reasoning this is the first time you showed any! I didn't was reason I just gave summary of position.

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

Not the ones I'm arguing about or which have been in the news lately.

That's because you are focusing too much on the details while ignoring the big picture of intent. And I'm supposed to be the one lacking vision...

This is a nice use of the "no true scotsman" falacy. I was using true smartphones over 10 years ago and worked customising the first microsoft smartphone (appeal to authority there).

And how does that invalidate my claim about there not being any similar successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before it? You didn't even name a single example of such a phone! All you did was to boast about something completely irrelevant (not to mention, unverifiable)!

No but that's what you just did.

Can you please explain how the text you quoted is a reduction to absurdity?

There is no debate, only the one in your head

Yeah, forgive me for actually giving you the chance to prove that you are not the same thing you accuse others of being... I will not overestimate your cognitive abilities again.

I was talking about gen1 ipod battery issues

Oh, so you're making sweeping statements about all current Apple customers because of something that happened 11 years ago? And we're the idiots?

Patent is not about design.

Neither was I arguing otherwise. The patents are merely tools. Ridiculous or not, they are what companies employ against each other when fighting a legal battle for something that may or may not be related. Again, you are focusing too much in the details and missing the big picture.

Dude, it was a throw-away comment, summary of my opinion based on over 10 years of experience, 3 spent in the smartphone industry (appeal to authority)

When I make comments based on beliefs, I don't usually let them branch out by replying to every answer, unless someone is grossly missing the point, in which case I reply only to clarify what my stance is. Lastly, I usually refrain from insulting the "audience".

Re:Apple begged for this

[sydneyfong]

Patent is not about design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Re:Apple begged for this

[Anonymous Coward]

you are making a straw man out of 3 pieces of straw. it's not going to work.

my comments are adequate for my purpose. they don't seem to suit your purpose

I wish you well.

sam

Re:Apple begged for this

[Deorus]

my comments are adequate for my purpose. they don't seem to suit your purpose

What purpose? Flame baiting by calling people idiots? Karma whoring by posting anti-Apple crap to Slashdot completely devoid of rational thinking?

Companies will advertise with patents, not tech

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Soon companies will advertise their products with their patent folios, not their technology. As in:

"We do NOT have the best technology, but we have the BEST patents! So buy our phones, because if you buy from a competitor, we will shutdown their features, because we own the patents."

"And we own the Patent Office and the Courts."

Re:Companies will advertise with patents, not tech

[game kid]

"Only our sweetPhones(R) combine Call Waiting with our patented whizBang(TM) technology (because our unpatented whizBang(TM) technology would get us sued to our very own layer of Hades)!"

Enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I enjoy seeing how the bastards at Apple get the short end of the stick from time to time, I can't help being horrified at this patent mess.

And to the other idiot around here ("have you read the patent, then?") -- no, I haven't. A patent covering old pager tech with (possibly IP over) GPRS tech is general enough to be undistinguishable from "doing sumfink with combuda an radio wawes" (correction: possibly there ain't something worth being called a "combuda" in the pager).

When will this nonsense stop?

Re:Enough!

[robbak]

As soon as Apple agrees to a patent swap agreement with Google. Yes, actual invention patents, for rounded-rectangle-in-black patents, but Google is only interested in competing.

Re:Enough!

[Deorus]

What I find amusing about the whole Android fiasco is that it ended up being LESS profitable to Google's core business than iOS, which they don't even have to develop. Before Android came out I never thought Google could be that fanatic and go as far as to refuse sharing patents with the likes of Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple for nothing more than pride. It is perfectly clear to me now that Google does not play well with others, especially after trying to establish Chrome and Google+ as platforms. While it does indeed provide great services that as an iOS user I take full advantage of, such as Maps and Google Apps, it has been showing an extremely irrational aversion to collaborating with other companies without establishing itself as the dominant party, and I don't think that aversion has their customers' or core business' best interests in mind.

Re:Enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going for dumbest motherfucker on slash dot today? Or is this an experiment in stupidity bin packing?

Nah, you already own that spot!

Re:Enough!

[tqk]

It is perfectly clear to me now that Google does not play well with others, especially after trying to establish Chrome and Google+ as platforms.

From what I see from a web search on "google suing", that sounds like you'd think my refusal to have anything to do with pedophiles and organized crime was a bad thing. Why in the world would a corp. whose motto is "Don't Be Evil" want to "play well" with those barratrous jerks? Perhaps Google just doesn't like this stupid patent war !@#, and this is the stand it's taking against it? It's not doing them much good considering all the incoming suits from others, but that's not what having principles is all about. It's about doing the right thing, not the convenient thing.

Google !@#$ing buys patent pools to get them off the market so those barratrous jerks can't use them against anyone, FFS! That sounds pretty damned "Don't Be Evil" to me.

No, I'm not a Google fanboi. I don't use anything of theirs; not even search. Nor do I own anything from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, or Motorola.

Re:Enough!

[noh8rz2]

No, I'm not a Google fanboi. I don't use anything of theirs; not even search. Nor do I own anything from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, or Motorola.

Please provide the following info: (1) the search engine you use (2) your mail provider (3) your computer manufacturer (4) your phone manufacturer (5) your OS

after you've done that, then we'll talk.

Re:Enough!

[tqk]

No, I'm not a Google fanboi. I don't use anything of theirs; not even search. Nor do I own anything from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, or Motorola.

Please provide the following info: (1) the search engine you use (2) your mail provider (3) your computer manufacturer (4) your phone manufacturer (5) your OS

after you've done that, then we'll talk.

Er, why? Humour me. Why do I owe you that? I don't.

1 - ixquick.com

2 - Dope it out! I use my real email address, and have done liberally for more than a decade.

3 - Which one? I use an HP Pavilion dv4 (64 bit AMD Turion) and a Gateway Model MA3 (32 bit AMD Sempron).

4 - ca. 2009 Nokia (dumb phone).

5 - Linux (Debian stable and testing (squeeze and wheezy).

You? Why do I feel like I'm being stalked by an idjit? And why the !@#$ would I want to talk with you anymore than I have?

Why are you being such an asshole? Just curious. :-|

Re:Enough!

[Deorus]

When did not playing well with others suddenly become suing others? Your entire post relies on this premise, so please explain it.

Re:Enough!

[tqk]

When did not playing well with others suddenly become suing others? Your entire post relies on this premise, so please explain it.

You accuse Google of not playing well with others (for not playing the "lets share patents" game). Google is not suing others. Others are suing Google.

So, WTF are you talking about?

Re:Enough!

[noh8rz2]

did you read rtfs or the rfta? motogoog is suing apple. that is the wtf of which you speak!

Re:Enough!

[tqk]

did you read rtfs or the rfta? motogoog is suing apple.

TFS. Well, both Microsoft and Apple have been suing Motorola over Android for quite some time. I assume TFA is just yet another front in that ongoing war. Try $WEB_SEARCH "motorola suing".

Re:Enough!

[noh8rz2]

what does this mean? $WEB_SEARCH

you may find this interesting. an article about how motogoog is abuisng its frand patents to achieve market share, which is anti-compentetive and now eu is investigating. who's evil now, biatch!

one two.

IP laws prevent progress

[symbolset]

It was a huge matter of argument when it got written into the US Constitution. Allowing the copyright clause seemed a strategic compromise at the time, but seems now to be a fatal flaw as it has enabled a highly profitable industry determined to use the profits they've garnered thereby to destroy the rest of that document.

Re:IP laws prevent progress

[houghi]

The constitution is nothing but a piece of paper. It is upon its readers to decide if they want to follow it or not.

Be sure that if it had said that copyright would not be possible and everything should be done under GPL, the industry would have found a way to do what it wants.

I can not even blame that industry for trying. I can only blame the people that voted for those who allow it.

Re:IP laws prevent progress

[Anonymous Coward]

I can not even blame that industry for trying. I can only blame the people that voted for those who allow it.

I'm getting really tired of this cop-out. "You can't blame the company, they exist just to make money!"

Yes, I fucking well can. Companies are made of people, people have moral compasses; if dickheads want to try this shit then they should be lynched for being immoral (aka evil) bastards. This is the Nuremberg defense all over again, "I was just doing my job!" — guess what, asshat? Power comes with responsibility, you don't get to have your money/power and then ignore all the externalities you created.

Re:IP laws prevent progress

[noh8rz2]

I can only blame the people that voted for those who allow it.

who is that? you're angry at john hancock and ben franklin? you're like an anti-tea-partier, raging against the founding fathers? how's that working out for you?

Re:IP laws prevent progress

[sjames]

Why not blame the industry that tried it? Do you blame the bank guards for failing if someone robs the bank? Do you find the 419 scammers blameless?

Re:IP laws prevent progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that assuming that the Government runs the Money, and not the other way around?

When does the true reform begin?

[symbolset]

Since the vested interests involved have lobbyists to "educate" our lawmakers and potential lawmakers, pretty much never.

What a suprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple acts like a douchebag company to everyone... Swings the lawyers at anything they can even imagine.
So everyone else is looking for ways to screw them over...

Gonna get worse before it gets better too. Especially for any apple users. Since apple hasn't really invented much of anything in a long time.

And they are sitting on a fat stack of cash just waiting for licensing or a settlement to be paid.

More money than sense.. Acts like a bunch of douchebags.. Yeah i'd be suing them too if i had any patents on anything i could even remotely dream might apply to an apple product.

Re:Don't worry

[atari2600a]

Oh sorry I was in ireland for that bit, the news literally flew right past us.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

We now blame our stupid friends from the us...

Apple asked for this

[gubers33]

Apple started making iPhone in 2007, then they tried to mess with a company that was making portable phones for over 30 years prior and were the main developers for the backbone all all the cellphone technology. Apple thought they were hot stuff and decided to kick a sleeping dog, they just didn't realize that dog was bigger than them in the cellphone business and would bite them in the ass for messing with them. Apple has a lot of good patents and a lot of bull crap ones, ie round corners on a rectangle. This one is an actual technology and doesn't apply to the 3G standards of FRAND so they are pretty much screwed on it. They asked for it though. Motorola left Apple alone, but Apple had to try to sue Motorola and every other Android phone maker. I guess their lawyers didn't think twice about suing the company that hold nearly every patent that involves the backbone of cellphone technology.

Re:Apple asked for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorola is not bigger than Apple. Motorola did not leave Apple alone, they have been after them about this since 2007. Stop spreading the typical anti Apple FUD on slashdot.

Re:Apple asked for this

[chrb]

I suspect Apple knew what they were doing. They are trying to deal with two huge problems:

1) Apple is a high-end consumer company, like with PCs they initially do rather well, but over time they end up fighting an ecosystem of other manufacturers who are constantly undercutting them and eroding their market share. That's capitalism, but as Apple won't join the fight for the low-end, they cede it to others. And over time, the low-end gets good enough for most people, and Apple's market share drops to single figures.

2) Apple had no worthwhile patents on the actual technology of the iPhone, which was already invented by 2007 (design patents don't count). Mobile browsers, email, etc. had already been done for many years, and all of the hardware was licensed and patented by others.

Apple's response to 1) was to go on the offensive, and try to use the handful of patents they did have which could be applied to smart phones, and use those patents to shut out competitive products (Android being the prime competitor). Apple's response to 2) is to argue that their patents from the last few years are the equal of those mobile patents that other companies have acquired in the last 20 years. i.e. if you want to make a modern smart phone, then you will need to do a deal to license Apple's patents, regardless of how many other patents you have. Apple can then try to use the license terms to negate the advantage of its competitors multi-decade mobile patent portfolios.

It is an interesting approach, they are playing for keeps in a very high value market. The worst case scenario for them is that they end up with global market share in the single digits, as happened with desktop computers, and their current strategy reflects this overriding concern. At best, they kill Android and regain their 90%+ of the smartphone market. What will probably happen is something in the middle of those two extremes.

Re:Apple asked for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorola left Apple alone, but Apple had to try to sue Motorola and every other Android phone maker.

Nice exposé there, too bad the facts don't back up your selective view of recent history.

Re:Apple asked for this

[Deorus]

Screwed by a software patent in the European Union? Dude, please!

Re:Apple asked for this

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what do you suggest - because one company had been into making cellphones for 30 years, they should rule who will live or die? I'm not defending any particular patent bully regarding software patents, but some ideas worth protecting for limited time. Standards essential patents are different from design ones in significant way. While push messages are not standard essential, but bogus on first place, it allows for such "lawyers play" in the courts. The landscape of all claims is very messy and all these companies - Apple, Google, Microsoft, Motorola, Samsung, etc. make it to be like this - no one looks to clean the situation by pushing for clear definitions with reasonable outcome for everybody, small and big - now and into the future. With more and more cash put in legal disputes covered by acquisitions of patent pools, it is likely no one of these "players" to become a driving force for such a change, though.

Re:Apple asked for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple did bring a few incredibly good patents to the table: multitouch patents. There really wasn't multitouch devices until Apple started to research multitouch for their iPod and iPhone. That is how Apple has been able to fend off all of these patent attacks from everybody else - because multitouch is the quiet hot new thing - you don't even hear about phones that are only single touch anymore, because they don't exist. At this point you can either get a cheap ass non-touch dumb phone, or you can get a multitouch phone (running either Android or iOS) but that manufacturer gets to pay Apple license fees for the multitouch portion of their phone. That means that manufacturers are forced into either making dumb phones and looking like idiots or making multitouch smartphones and paying Apple money.

Now, nobody wants to be paying a competitor money (particularly Samsung and Motorola), so they currently manufacture both dumb phones and smart phones and try to avoid paying patent license fees as much as possible (so Apple is forced into suing due to "laches"), and try to get as much money from Apple as possible by suing Apple.

Everybody is playing the same game because Apple waltzed into a market that wasn't being innovated fast enough to keep them out. The same thing happened with mp3 players (when Apple introduced the iPod), and with tablets (when Apple introduced the iPad), and is either happening or about to happen in the TV market (where Apple has introduced Apple TV). Suing other companies is something every company does if they think their patents are worth enough money to sue instead of settle, and in that regard, Apple is only one of thousands of companies that do so. I don't understand why people on Slashdot get so upset when companies with actual patents (ignoring patent trolls for the moment) sue other companies that are probably infringing on held patents, but that probably has to do with Slashdotters not understanding the purpose of design patents (as opposed to invention patents), and everybody on Slashdot being an armchair expert on everything everybody else (particularly Apple) is doing wrong.

Disclaimer: I own a ~7 year old refurbished iPod and an iPhone without a data plan, an HP TouchPad, and I like them all, and I run LinuxMint and Ubuntu at home. I don't consider myself an Apple fanboy, although you might (good for you).

Re:Apple asked for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the good laugh. Moronola has been in the red for several years now. They're the Kodak of the mobile phone industry. The only reason why the Google assholes bought them is because of the patent portfolio. As a phone manufacturer they've been irrelevant for at least 5 years.

Re:Apple asked for this

[gubers33]

Didn't realize all those Droids were irrelevant or the Razor

A stick is still a stick

[NGTechnoRobot]

If I have a stick its just a stick, Currently I can patent throwing the stick, balancing the stick on my nose, throwing the stick, but it's still a stick. If I add some string to make it so I can throw it farther its now an enhanced stick worthy of a patent. Hardware is the key and should be the deciding factor when accepting a patent.

Re:A stick is still a stick

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the monkey that patented eating bugs off a stick made a fortune!

Re:A stick is still a stick

[snowgirl]

I bet the monkey that patented eating bugs off a stick made a fortune!

Indeed, he had all the bugs he could eat...

Re:Don't worry

[Hognoxious]

It's all the Greeks' fault these days.

Re:Don't worry

[aix tom]

Unless you're Greek. Then it's the Germans fault again.

Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licensing

[Sycraft-fu]

All the companies are just interested in making Apple sit down and shut the fuck up. None of this counter-lawsuit stuff started until Apple started to try and shut everyone else down. The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.

Then in comes Apple who decides they can just sue everyone else out of existence. They think they should be the only company other than maybe RIM who is allowed to produce a smartphone or tablet. No surprise it has raised the ire of all the other companies and they are now striking back.

They don't want money, they want Apple to stop suing. I'm not sure Apple will though, I think they are real scared. Apple's rise to their current mega corp status has all been about getting in to markets that nobody else is really having any success in and making it cool. This lets them sell their stuff with a massive profit margin due to no competition.

They did it with MP3 players first. They weren't the first company to make one, but they made them cool, made them a fashion accessory. Now everyone had to have one, but not just any one, an iPod. That has waned quite a bit these days, but no problem, because then they brought smartphones to consumers. Blackberry's were always business toys. The US government loves the things but they didn't sell so well on the consumer market. The iPhone made smartphones a thing to have and they did well there. Then of course they made tablets the new toy to have. Most people have no idea why they want one, but they want one.

However they don't seem to have a "what's next" and unlike the MP3 player situation, people are moving in on phones and tablets quicker than they are ready for. Android went from more or less an experiment to an extremely competent competitor in just a few years and has been selling really well. They see their market slipping, and have nowhere else to go.

So they are going sue happy, to try and keep everyone else out. If they can't, they risk losing their place of prominence, and no company wants that.

Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[Vapula]

The big point about having the Nuclear Bomb is to NOT use it...

Steve Jobs broke the truce and went nuclear against Android... Except that most of his nuclear missiles are rotten (patents on obvious things... didn't we have "swipe" in "Minority Report" for example... and rounded rectangle... no comment)

Now, it's beginning to backfire... Samsung, Motorola and other would probably not have sued Apple out of existence... But now, Apple has put them in a situation where it's probably the best move...

My guess is that they will sue Apple again and again until iPhone and iPad go to oblivion... And Apple is in a dangerous situation. It's share is bubbling up... which means that it's perceived value is probably much higher than it's real value... It also mean that the Apple share can drop suddently to levels well below it's real value (panic effect) when the bubble will explode... And market bubble always explode one time or another...

Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[Deorus]

In which other case has it backfired for Apple. Motorola managed to get the iPhone banned based on standards patents, Apple managed to get the ban lifted and filed an antitrust complaint along with Microsoft against Motorola which could, if accepted, hold Motorola liable for all damages resulting from the iPhone ban in Germany. Now they're suing Apple using a software patent in the European Union, which Apple is very likely to invalidate in an appeal and may make Motorola liable for even more damage. With suicidal moves like these, Motorola is making sure there's nothing of value left for Google to collect once their acquisition is finished.

Samsung? What did Samsung get from Apple?

Google have purposely placed themselves in a position which may get them in trouble with Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco by refusing to share patents. How's this an intelligent business choice? Actually, how's standing FOR Android (which is LESS profitable for Google than iOS and is losing share to it) an intelligent business decision? The only explanation that I can find to the whole Android fiasco is fanaticism, and Google will drag everyone down with them, except maybe Samsung, because they're strong in other areas.

Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you type this from your iPhone or iPad??

Google refusing to share patents with Apple, Microsoft and Cisco?? Umm Nortel seems to come to mind where the 3 deprived companies of Apple, M$ and Oracle joined together for a ridiculous counter offer above Google. The thing is they went in as a group hiding their name. Underhanded and ulterior motives is more like it.

Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Android (which is LESS profitable for Google than iOS and is losing share to it)

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201101-201201

You'll notice the only month Android "lost share" to iOS was in Nov 2011, the month when many people received their iPhone 4S. Times have changed. It is now February 2012 and there have been no additional iPhone releases. Also notice that the iOS line reacts inversely to the Symbian line, while Android just steadily creeps up. Not really supporting what you were saying, is it?

In fact, I don't think you'll be able to say that Apple stole any meaningful amount of market share from Google, in any market, for some time to come.

Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[Deorus]

I don't know exactly what the source for that chart is, but it places iOS much higher in the mobile OS share than Android, especially before the iPhone 4. I'll leave it up to you to explain this when it's a widely known fact that Android's share is and has been higher for a long time. This is relevant not because it validates my claims but because it potentially invalidates your source.

Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs

[mjwx]

The big point about having the Nuclear Bomb is to NOT use it...

Steve Jobs broke the truce and went nuclear against Android... Except that most of his nuclear missiles are rotten (patents on obvious things... didn't we have "swipe" in "Minority Report" for example... and rounded rectangle... no comment)

Now, it's beginning to backfire... Samsung, Motorola and other would probably not have sued Apple out of existence... But now, Apple has put them in a situation where it's probably the best move...

Indeed, just look at what Microsoft did.

"Dear Android makers,

We have some non-specific and probably unenforceable patents that would cost you money to defend, we wont sue you if you agree to pay us money."

And it worked, Microsoft got people paying them for nothing. Apple could have done the same except that Jobs didn't want money, he wanted to stop people competing against him. Now the people Apple has sued have responded in kind and Apple realises that suing one competitor is foolish, only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots sues all of them.

In 5 years, we'll look back on this and laugh, the "Look and Feel MK II" suit, it'll end as badly as the first one.

Push email?

[SuricouRaven]

If I want instant communication with someone, I'll run skype, or AIM, or an old-fashioned phone call. Maybe even just use SMS. Email was not supposed to be real-time.

Re:Push email?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want instant communication with someone, I'll run skype, or AIM, or an old-fashioned phone call. Maybe even just use SMS. Email was not supposed to be real-time.

Are you from 1990?

Re:Push email?

[tqk]

If I want instant communication with someone, I'll run skype, or AIM, or an old-fashioned phone call. Maybe even just use SMS. Email was not supposed to be real-time.

Are you from 1990?

Ah, you're one of those idiots who phones me to ask whether I got your email if I don't reply within a minute.

email is asynchronous; feature! And, there are times when SMTP needs to do some housekeeping, which is why you get those bounce messages telling you the message couldn't be sent immediately, but that it will try again later.

I've no idea whether Exchange bothers with that anymore, or perhaps you think those are spam. Or, you call the postmaster demanding to know what that error message is saying?

Re:Push email?

[noh8rz2]

there's a difference between a technology being instantaneous and communication being synchronous or asynchronous. maybe you need to do more research.

email is asynchronous; feature!

No.comments about-:grammer

Re:Push email?

[tqk]

there's a difference between a technology being instantaneous and communication being synchronous or asynchronous.

And, your point is ...? Care to spell it out for me? Please, go ahead and assume I'm an idiot. Really! I won't think less of you for it.

I'm currently reading a book ("The Anti-Christ") written by a guy (Nietzsche) who died more than a century ago. He's communicating with me via his writings. It's pretty asychronous though, since I didn't pick it up until long after he was dead. When he died, my father hadn't yet been born! I think that's pretty damned asynchronous.

Do you consider a dead tree book to be technology[*]?

It's an interesting read. He was an interesting man. It may take me a decade to make sense of what he wrote. Here's hoping I live that long.

Next, Thus Spake Zarathustra.

[*]Project Gutenberg - Authors with last name initial N.

Yet I waste *my valuable time* trying to educate the likes of you, and for what?!?

Re:Don't worry

[wzzzzrd]

There are no software patents in Germany. This is not a software patent. Also, it's "die Juden" not "der juden".

See, you just learned two new things! Knowing now how easy that was maybe it's time to fill out that school application and give education a try? It's never too late they say.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Deorus]

However they don't seem to have a "what's next" and unlike the MP3 player situation, people are moving in on phones and tablets quicker than they are ready for. Android went from more or less an experiment to an extremely competent competitor in just a few years and has been selling really well. They see their market slipping, and have nowhere else to go.

This is incorrect. Android ate from Symbian's market, not iOS' (with RIM losing share to both). Not only that but Google has admitted in a hearing regarding its search monopoly that 2/3 of its mobile web hits come from iOS devices, and now InMobi is claiming that iOS has more mobile advertisement impressions than Android. For the first time iOS is actually in a tug-of-war with Android for market share, and it seems like iOS is winning, asn Android has actually been losing share whereas iOS continues to gain it.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Truedat]

All the companies are just interested in making Apple sit down and shut the fuck up

So the only evidence you have of this is a timeline in which Apple made the first move? Go ahead and project your own bias onto it but the more likely situation is that they are all money grabbing bastards the same as each other, including googlerola. The board have sanctioned this move because they think there is a competetive advantage to be had, not because they want play bitch slappin high fives.

In fact I am rooting for apple not because I am a fanboy (which I am) but because I find this cross licensing consolidation, that is just a club for the big boys, slightly disturbing. And the support of it on slashdot even more so.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[realityimpaired]

You're not accounting for the usage habits of the buyers.

There are *no* ad-supported apps on my cell phone. None. Everything I have installed is either legitimately free, or it came with the phone. And I don't use mobile web at all. I'm on a flex data plan, and my usage is consistently in the bottom tier (25mb/mo). 100% of my data usage is e-mail, calendar, and contacts. I would not show up on either of those statistics. And yes, I have an Android device.

Considering that the iPhone is marketed as an internet-connected consumer device, specifically for the consumption of stuff on the web, I would be willing to lay odds that iPhone users consume more web, on average, than Android users. Sure, there will be aberrations on either platform, but ultimately I think the numbers will show that on the whole, iPhone users consume more data. That will naturally skew statistics that come from watching peoples' data use: that is, search hits and ad impressions.

On a mobile device

[Anonymous Coward]

This injunction is stupid and the Motorola patent is not valid nor does it protect any innovating thinking by Motorola. It falls in the category of, take a technology (push notifications), tack on "ON A MOBILE DEVICE" and you got yourself a new patent.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Anonymous Coward]

However they don't seem to have a "what's next"

This is why they've implemented séances at the monthly board meetings. Tim Cook instructed the Apple development team to write an iOuija (c) (tm) app for the iPad, and they're busily communing with the spirit of the Master.

this is not going to end soon...

[Yehat]

Everyone has opinion - about who is bastard, motherfucker, troll, bully, etc...
What's the point? Most every comment I read says "fuck you Apple, you've asked it". How this is going to change anything? Imagine there is no Apple, and before 2007 almost nobody ever considered Apple as the greatest evil on Earth, but these patent games surely are not from 2007. Are Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Motorola better I ask? What strikes me is that nobody is doing something else, all they saw the market created for mobile and is trying to get a piece of it without scruples. Not the thinnest even. As much as I'd dislike Nokia fate, they are the only company that not matter how good or bad they suffered, tried to start clean, and if they fail, I'm sure they'll admit it. Motorola, Samsung - also disgusting bitches - one that lives in the past, the other that want to suck as much blood from it customers as they can - the real parasites of technology today.
If everybody believes we'll be happy without Apple - I bet it will not be enough, having Google and Samsung take on us freely with "open" platform and everything else that simply sucks.

What the fuck? And I thought Germany was sane...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Germany not recognize software patents? Or was that software copyrights? Either way...

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Deorus]

Well, there are a few facts that are being ignored here. First the iOS and Android shares don't overlap entirely: iOS is strong in the tablet world whereas Android is not; iOS is strong in the music player world where Android is not even present, but Android is strong in the former Symbian low-end market where iOS is not present, so in the end you have an Android share that is mostly comprised of people who don't actually care about what runs their devices, whereas all iOS users go for iOS precisely because of it. That's a really big difference, and I think it must be mentioned every time Android shares are mentioned. Where Android and iOS clash (the high-end phone and tablet markets), people show a very strong preference for iOS.

The problem, and what really doesn't make any sense to me, is that Android as a project is not justified if it performs worse when it comes to benefiting Google's core business than iOS does without Google's support. Imagine, for example, if it was Google powering Siri. Just think of the possibilities of every local business paying Google a little fee just to be mentioned by Siri when someone asks for an Italian restaurant in the neighborhood. What reasons do Google have to invent and insist in having its own platforms (Android, Google+, Chrome) even at a loss when they could collaborate with Apple for instant profit? In this case, the question as to whether iOS would more profitable for Google if Android did not exist doesn't even apply, because even with Android in the market, iOS is still more profitable for Google as a platform! So, again, what is the rationale for insisting on Android?

Apple is indeed controlling, a trait inherited from its former CEO, but at least they have a vision and are not blinded by unfounded beliefs. They have absolutely no problem partnering with others when it's best for both the company and its customers, they don't insist on unprofitable strategies to save face, they are perfectly happy to admit when they make mistakes, and they can tell when it's advantageous to share their patents with other companies such as Microsoft and Cisco (which Google, for some irrational reason, refused to do). That's what's best for both consumers and investors! That's what generates money! That's why Apple is currently worth more than Google and Microsoft combined!

I like Google and use some of their products, such as Search, Maps, and Google Apps. Those are great products, but Jesus, to hell with their unwillingness to play with others! What's their problem with Facebook? Couldn't they partner with Facebook to provide advertisement? That's their fucking business model! What's their problem with Twitter? If they're so eager to invest on businesses that don't make sense for their technology or patents or whatever (such as Motorola), why not Twitter? It's an excellent and actually tested worldwide notification gateway implementation! There are plenty of amazing things they could do with it beyond the realm of microblogging!

Most of you are missing the point...

[sudden.zero]

This is the reason that Google purchased Motorola, because Motorola owns a crap-load (yes that's a technical term) of old generic patents that can be applied to almost anything in the mobile industry. Google has gotten tired of being the guy, with no patents, getting kicked by Apple and Microsoft. I for one am glad to see Google doing the kicking for once! At least Google finally got Linux on the map even if it is a Mobile OS! So I say "Hoorah, Google and Keep Kicking!"

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[whisper_jeff]

The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.

Um. No.

http://flowingdata.com/2010/10/11/mobile-patent-lawsuits/

The _ENTIRE MOBILE INDUSTRY_ is suing each other like crazy right now. Stop pretending this is just Apple getting all up in everyone's faces and everyone pushing back valiantly against Apple - this is _THE ENTIRE MOBILE INDUSTRY_ going to war with each other.

And, for the record, it seems that Nokia is the most aggressive company out there, not Apple.

Please, for the love of gawd, if you're going to hate on Apple, at least base it on fact rather than made up garbage. Seriously.

SMTP is a push-technology

[gweihir]

Have these people not read RFC822 (updated by RFC2822)? Or is this just the usual incompetence of the patent office?

It only takes one to make war

[A nonymous Coward]

Your non-violence attitude is fine when all you care about is not starting a war yourself. Doesn't do squat when someone else starts beating up on you.

That's what's going on here. This particular spate of patent fights was triggered when St Jobs decided to go all holy war on Android and Google and won injunctions against phones which had rounded corners among other stupid patents. Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and other Android makers got caught in the cross fire and shot back. Don't get me wrong, Apple fan-boys: everyone plays the same game, it's just this particular mini-war which was started by St Jobs.

The fault is with governments that make money from issuing as many patents as possible and lawyers who make money from fighting as many patent battles as possible. It's quite evident that "obvious to anyone skilled in the arts" and "for a limited time" mean nothing. Patents would have a purpose if they were actually limited to innovative clever not-so-obvious features and there were only, say, one thousandth the number we have now.

But it's also obvious that governments and lawyers have an interest in not limiting patents to the truly innovative, and we'd be better off with no patents whatsoever. Innovative companies would always have a lead in clever designs, and early adopters would be glad to pay a premium for that and quality. Copycat companies would always be playing catchup and have to charge less for mass production.

The world would be a better place if all those patent lawyers and government bureaucrats had to find useful productive work instead of being parasites who gum up the works.

Re:It only takes one to make war

[Anonymous Coward]

The lessons that I'd draw would be that it's better to go with cheap crap patents and never actually innovate or otherwise create truly new and novel methods and concepts as all that seems to draw is whining about FRAND.

Re:It only takes one to make war

[A nonymous Coward]

That is the lesson which has been learned by most companies, and especially by patent lawyers.

Re:It only takes one to make war

[don.g]

I disagree (and agree with #39157489). "Parasites who gum up the works" -- and I know lawyers and government employees who most definitely do not fall into that category -- will stay as long as we accept them as a necessary evil. The system will remain broken as long as we continue to say "OK, that's how the world works, we're stuck with it". As long as we think "Nothing I do will make any difference".

What does this mean? It means avoiding buying products made by companies who have serious ethical lapses -- or at a minimum, getting as much use out of them as you can before getting rid of them, as avoiding companies like that can be pretty difficult. Personally, yes I have a smartphone made in China, but just like the last one, I won't get rid of it until it drops dead, or I can give it as a hand-me-down to someone else whose phone has died or doesn't have one at all. And I have a cheapie one, not something that's produced a massive profit margin for the company who made it.

The "I won't act until everyone else does" line (or "I won't act until legislation forces us all to") is a great way to sound sanctimonious without having to do anything. If you think what's happening is wrong, don't do it yourself and don't contribute to it. Sure, it may mean you have a slightly lower quality of life than your neighbour, but I'd prefer that to getting angry with "other people" who are doing exactly the same thing I would -- that's just hypocrisy.

Re:It only takes one to make war

[A nonymous Coward]

Is it your claim that Android businesses should not strike back with their own patent claims after St Jobs went on the warpath?

Are you saying they should sit back and wait while hordes of angry ethical customers desert Apple and flock to Android and save their bacon?

Not only is that bonkers, your ethical consumers are independent of self-defense. I myself steer clear of St Jobs products because I think his single minded control freakery produces inflexible inferior products. But that's nothing to do with your silly business plan, if that is what you are trying to say. Ethical buying has nothing to do with self-defense. I abhor murder, but if a friend shoots a burglar, I will say "Good on ya, mate" and pat him in the back for exercising the natural right of self-defense.

Re:It only takes one to make war

[don.g]

I don't know what Android businesses (the big, big, big ones who are in this fight) should do but I don't get to decide anyway. I don't think ethical customers leaving Apple will save them -- and I don't think things are as black and white as "Apple: unethical; Android handset manufacturers: ethical" anyway. But I'm going to avoid supporting what I see as bad behaviour. I know that my individual action won't make any difference by itself. But I'm going to do it anyway.

And oh wow, I'm not going to pat my mate on the back for shooting a burglar. That's not self-defense unless it looked like the burglar was going to kill my mate. But then I live in a country where hardly anyone has a gun, so it's a pretty unlikely situation anyway.

Re:Less Pushin' for the Hessian

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Mein German ist ja a bit corroded, but shouldn't that have been "Das hat sie gesagt"?

Re:Don't worry

[ColdWetDog]

Unless you're Greek. Then it's the Germans fault again.

It's Bush's fault! (Sounds like a German name to me.)

Re:Don't worry

[sudden.zero]

No, Bush is actually an English Sir Name. German Sir Names commonly end in things like Berg or Berger for example Schamberger (My Grandmothers maiden name), Schamberg, or Hammerberg. Also, a lot of German-Americans shortened their names to just Berg or Berger to try and disassociate themselves with the Nazi's. Just FYI.

GOOD- the cold war of patents is over!

[bussdriver]

I hope everybody destroys each other utterly and consumers suffer BIG TIME. Maybe then the masses will realize how stupid the patent system has become and how it has not been serving it's purpose for existing. Most the patents in that space should not exist; and many of apples should exist as copyright (which is easy enough to work around.) Apple should have put more time into variations on touch screens if they didn't want to be at risk of copy cats; that patent was one of the few legit ones. Then the others would have inferior touch screens... Although, I don't think patents should be allowed to monopolize to that degree, they should have to license to anybody for a high fee with some sort of oversight.

We do not need BP preventing alternative energy progress because they own some key patent. Don't think they wouldn't... if they didn't just keep it secret until they thought somebody else might file it.

Re:GOOD- the cold war of patents is over!

[gweihir]

While I do not like it at all, I find that you have a point. Maybe we should just force the patent office and the patent owner to pay significant damages when a patent gets invalidated.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Richy_T]

You think Google should have just let themselves be at the mercy of Apple? Did you not read the stories of the deals they forced authors and Amazon into? I'm not saying inventing a whole new phone OS was necessarily the right or best answer but it was clear that were Apple left to dominate the market, they would have been several times worse than Microsoft ever were in the PC market.

They're at it again

[Hognoxious]

Anyone else read that as Putsch email?

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Deorus]

Different cases. Apple has a store of their own, so it is natural to not want other business to use their platform to provide competitive services without sharing any of the revenue. They are, however, not in the advertisement business, and thus a partnership with Google would make all the sense here. With Apple providing the platform and Google providing the services, the combined result would be unbeatable and extremely beneficial to consumers.

What I'd like to know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are the arrogant Google assholes behind this? After all, Moronola is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Arrogant Google Assholes, Inc.

So poll instead

[Anonymous Coward]

So put in a short polling interval, what's the big idea?

Just use SMS

[peterburkimsher]

That's fine; just forward your email to SMS, and it works the same way. Although you only get the first 160 characters, it is instant, and doesn't require 3G. If you can't figure out how to set up Email-SMS forwarding, for free, with no incoming or outgoing text message charges... email me.

Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...we're talking phones here, bub. Quit talking statistics for a whole OS, which is dominated in web usage statistics by the iPad specifically.

Or did you think people browse the web on phones just as much as tablets?

Android is still making just as much of a killing in smartphones as they always were. Your tertiary statistics don't do anything to disprove the actual sales figures. Sorry. Maybe your new angle can be that people are throwing away their Android phones in a trash compactor right after they buy them? Just trying to help...

Doesn't IMAP have this already?

[Johann Lau]

Thunderbird (on the desktop) happily does that with my IMAP accounts... huh? What am I missing??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAP_IDLE

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

> Also, it's "die Juden" not "der juden"

Only in the nominative case. But in his sentence the action was being done to them so it could be "der Juden", no?

Re:Truce - No. Let them fight!

[scsirob]

I think all we need to do is sit back and let them fight. Let the big corporations fight over stupid patents. Yes, it will hurt innovation now, and it will hurt consumer interest in the short term. But by having them fight over hundreds, if not thousands of trivial patents, the system will implode. Companies will have to conclude that patents are starting to become more of a burden than they are worth.

Wait five years, this will be solved.

Bollocks.

[mjwx]

The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.

Um. No.

http://flowingdata.com/2010/10/11/mobile-patent-lawsuits/

I really hate those infographics because they dumb down the scenarios so badly.

Plus that one is wrong, it doesn't even include Apple v Samsung or Apple v Motorola, both Motorola and Samsung's suits against Apple are counter suits.

The graphic lower down on that page explains that the majority of Nokia's suits are over LCD price fixing (so no shit they are suing multiple companies, it's part of the same fucking suit). But as I said, it does not even include the Apple v Samsung case that has garnered a lot of attention.

And, for the record, it seems that Nokia is the most aggressive company out there, not Apple.

For the record, that is bullshit.

If you bothered tor read the incorrect article you linked to, three out of the five Nokia suits are in relation to LCD price fixing, the same suit for three different companies. One of the remaining two is a counter suit against Apple. So that leaves the suit between Nokia and Qualcomm. The original Nokia V Apple was resolved with Apple paying Nokia license fees mid last year, license fees which Nokia had been chasing Apple for since it released the Iphone and Apple had been refusing to pay.

The big difference between Apple and other companies is that Apple is suing it's competitors to prevent them from competing. They aren't asking for reasonable license fees, chances are HTC, Samsung et al. would have paid the danegled to make Apple go away (it worked for Microsoft didn't it), but Apple didn't want this, Apple asked the courts for injunctions, not license fees, so dont act all butt hurt that now everyone else is doing that to Apple.