Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's current legal battles with Samsung encapsulate a large number of patents, innumerable suits and counter-suits, and have resulted in legal motions in 11 jurisdictions across the globe. As you may remember, Steve Jobs in his biography was quite vocal about his intent to go thermonuclear on Android, vowing to spend every last dime in Apple's coffers to destroy Google's mobile OS. But Tim Cook is a bit more level headed about things, expressing during Apple's earnings conference call yesterday that he has has always hated litigation and would much rather settle than to battle in court. The caveat, of course, is that Cook doesn't want Apple to 'become the developer for the world.'" It may not be what Jobs would do, but as zacharye notes, it doesn't seem to be hurting earnings. "Despite early-morning jitters on Wall Street, Apple on Tuesday reported yet another blow-out quarter. The Cupertino, California-based company managed the second most profitable quarter in its history, posting a net profit of $11.6 billion on $39.2 billion in sales. Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones into channels last quarter, along with 11.8 million iPads, 7.7 million iPods and 4 million Mac computers. While the firm continues to dominate the technology industry — Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world — several analysts think Apple is just getting started."
The thing with Adobe is that it's by no means all Apple's fault.
One of the core issues was Adobe's creative suite, when they ported it to OS X they used Carbon rather than Cocoa. They knew Carbon wouldn't live forever yet they threw a temper tantrum when Apple started dropping Carbon in favor of the all-Cocoa future. Then they seemed to realize that if they dropped OS X as a platform they'd most likely end up losing customers as others (possibly including Apple themselves) filled the void, apparently they figure out that users of Adobe software on Apple platforms are generally more loyal to Apple than Adobe...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Adobe killed mobile Flash last year. Are you expecting Apple to now build their own Flash client implementation for this buggy, insecure, dying technology? Jobs was right about Flash.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
you can patent implementation, not the idea
No, patents protect the idea, copyrights protect implementations.
car companies have all kinds of engine patents yet there are something like 10 different car companies selling cars in the US that all take the same gasoline
The basic idea you are referring to is the Otto cycle and it was indeed patented. The patent has long since expired.
if someone comes out with an idea you can always find a better way with some time and effort.
No, you can't, especially when patents are simply too broad. If someone patents the idea of multitouch on a phone, there is no way of implementing multitouch interfaces on a phone without violating the patent, no amtter how much research you do.
its always the asian companies that only want to rip off someone's work just to sell it for less.
Whereas, American companies want to rip it off, sell it for more, then sue the inventor?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ya know, maybe they don't "invent" things. Whatever.
Yes.
One can say for sure that most of the industry tends to copy Apple's, er, um, 'not inventions'.
Designs. The word you are looking for is designs.
What did smartphones look like before the iPhone?
Well, in 1992, you had the IBM Simon which was a blank slab with nothing but a touchscreen. Due to the manufacturing tech and other constraints of the time, it was quite thick and a bit lumpy, because the basic aerial and speaker tech was not advanced. But bsaically, it's a cuboid with a screen and nothing else.
Then, later you had the LG Prada which was basically the same idea with 2006 era manufacturing and phone tech. That makes it a rather slicker cuboid with a screen and little else.
So yes, Apple didn't invent the idea or basic design, but they produced a very refined version of it.
What did tablets look like before the iPad?
Er, pretty featureless cuboids with little else but a screen and as thin as possible given the state-of-the art manufacturing tech, like the Hp-Compaq TC1100?
Aren't all of the ultra books attempted copies of the Macbook Air?
Again, they were not the first company to make thin or light laptops.
You're again confusing inventing the original idea with producing a good or even leading implementation of the idea. The latter is what Apple do, not the former. There's nothing wrong with that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's not the point Baloroth was trying to make. The claim was presented that there was no phone that looked like the iPhone prior to the iPhone coming out. That is false.
All your argument suggests is that Apple is better at advertising and marketing.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...