Sale of Galaxy Nexus Banned in the US

New submitter busyqth writes "After the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier in the week, A U.S. district court judge has now also granted an injunction against the sale of Google's flagship ICS phone, the Galaxy Nexus. Is Steve Jobs laughing in the great beyond? Is this the beginning of the end for Android?" Two blows to Samsung in one week, and now the FTC is investigating Google for misuse of Motorola Mobility patents in relation to RAND standards.

Comments

Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

And I once walked into a store and banged down hundreds of dollars for an iPad only to find once I got it home it was a Samsung Galaxy tablet. Perhaps the words on the box, the different software, the different colour, the different interface should have tipped me off, but heck, they were both RECTANGULAR with a BUTTON.

So judge Koh is protecting poor people like me, who desperately want an iPad but accidentally buy a competitor that out powers it, out functions it, comes in a wider range of varieties and is developing faster than it.

Incredible to think a single person can do so much good for the world and all without any bribe money!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[TemperedAlchemist]

Pah! Just wait until Apple catches wind that I own the patent for rectangular boxes!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[MrDoh!]

Think this is the closest Apple's come yet to going after core Google. It's the search patent that appears to have snagged them. If they get this, they get every android phone currently out there and serve a continual warning to every potential Android licensee that if they even think of entering the Phone Market, they WILL be sued out of existence. Don't think even MS back in the day was ever as obviously aggressive as this.

For something that I've always suspected started as a way to negotiate cheaper component prices out of Samsung, Apple's really stirred up a poo storm.

Samsung? Contacts be damned, now's the time to stop shipping anything to your competitor who only wants to see you destroyed the second they can replace you.
Apple started the nerf bat swinging, never know who it'll take out in the end.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[SomePgmr]

Apparently the decision was based on, "Apple's claim to the patent to search multiple sources, which Apple says is the basis of Siri. [...] Judge Koh said 'Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm [because] of long-term loss of market share and losses of downstream sales."

On the surface of it, it sounds awfully stupid to me. If I'm remembering correctly, "searching multiple sources" by voice query existed in Android devices first, no?

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/breaking-judge-grants-apple-an-injunction-against-the-galaxy-nexus/

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[hairyfeet]

Crap like this is why I've been saying for awhile people need to quit worrying about MSFT, which under Ballmer the only real skills they seem to have anymore is blowing money and shooting themselves in the face, and start worrying about Apple.

Just remember folks that Jobs before he died said he would happily spend his fortune to "Nuke Android" and I wouldn't be surprised if Cook hasn't forgotten those words. I'm sure he knows with Ballmer at the helm MSFT isn't a threat, as Zune and Kin and WinPhone 7 made quite clear, but high end Android devices with faster refreshes and newer and more powerful hardware IS very much a threat. I have a feeling its gonna get a whole lot nastier and I agree, if I was Samsung I wouldn't sell them so much as a screw.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[styrotech]

Well the flipside of that argument could be: if they don't know enough about the iPad to tell the difference, how do they/we really know they wanted an "iPad" instead of "a tablet" anyway?

They could just be using iPad as the only name they know of for a new fangled flat computer. And even then - if "iPad" is the only name they know of to ask for in the store or the only name to look for on the box, why weren't they sold one?

If similar looks are really such an issue, wouldn't these people who just grab something in the store (without asking for an iPad or looking for "iPad" on the box) be in danger of accidentally walking out with an electronic picture frame or something? Should the judge get involved there too?

This is all moot though - from the sound of things it was Siri search patents rather than looks that are behind the injunction.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[SternisheFan]

Did'ja ever notice how when a bully is confronted with the truth, they get louder. They start to attempt to intimidate by any means at their disposal. When confronted with facts, they get confused, and don't know what to do as their audience catches on and begins to drift away. That's when they become more desperate and turn to larger bullying tactics. Then the bullied either stands their ground or meekly lets the bully win. There are times when the best course of action for the bullied is to walk away, and hopefully live to fight another day. IMHO, for this is not one. Apple has been losing their ardent followers for some time now. People have seen android as a very viable alternative, and are switching over. Apple knows this, or they wouldn't be resorting to these bully tactics. I root for the underdog in life, and love it when the bullies lose.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[JustOK]

Ford sues GM cuz "their's looks like a box with wheels and it goes vrooom vrooom, just like ours. It cornfuses people, make 'em stop."

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[oztiks]

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," an Apple spokeswoman said in an email. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Oh yes because Apple invented phones, calendars, address books, web browsers and SMS messaging tools. I'm sure don't believe their own shit, rather they see this as a means to delay successful delpoyment of a competitive product.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[AmiMoJo]

Apple is in danger of triggering Armageddon. Google has been fairly good natured so far, but if they decide to start a war things can only get worse for the consumer.

We need to put a stop to this. Patent reform is the only way.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[LordVader717]

You can't assume ill-informed people and malevolent shop clerks to set any standard. Imagine someone walking into a store a wanting a Walkman, but leaving with a Panasonic rather than a Sony gadget. People who don't know what an iPhone looks like don't need judges to ban competitors, especially when there's still plenty of products out there that look like generic tablets/smartphones.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

Webcrawler with OS/2 Warp 4 speech recognition in 1996?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Shadow of Eternity]

Shouting to a room of grad students or interns?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ozmanjusri]

Apple is in danger of triggering Armageddon. Google has been fairly good natured so far, but if they decide to start a war things can only get worse for the consumer.

I doubt it'll affect consumers much.

Apple's likely to have a bit to worry about if they take on Google though, especially now Google have Moto designs like the E 690in their hands.

https://www.google.com/search?q=motorola-e690&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=cOfuT9DDHqSXiQfC0-iADQ&ved=0CFYQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1040

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Sulphur]

Pah! Just wait until Apple catches wind that I own the patent for rectangular boxes!

Hence the rounded corners.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Sulphur]

Apple is in danger of triggering Armageddon. Google has been fairly good natured so far, but if they decide to start a war things can only get worse for the consumer.

We need to put a stop to this. Patent reform is the only way.

Patent reform from low earth orbit, its the only way to be sure.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I'll go one further and say patent abolition is the only way to stop it.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Max_W]

patent abolition

This is it.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[MickyTheIdiot]

I am not sure about Armageddon, but Google has money and this is a solid, concrete example of patents as a true hinderance to the advancement of the economy.

In this case maybe we play the fucked up short-term game to get a needed long-term change.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the absurdity of the similarity claims and the who's done it first angle... this phrase from TFA should be enough to draw some conclusions:

Koh granted the injunction after Apple argued that the Galaxy Nexus phone caused it irreparable harm due to long-term market-share loss and "losses of downstream sales," according to The Next Web.

This is simply anti-capitalism stated on a single sentence. Basically, from what I grasp, the idea is "we need to avoid that competitor's action because we would lose money if competition were to happen".

I intended to throw a joke to mock the US for this kind of reasoning in the legal system, but the situation is actually kinda depressing and worrying when one assess where the current trends are taking the entire country. Although I'm not from the US, it makes me pause just thinking about the long term consequences of these changes.

Maybe someone smarter than me could figure out what we'll have in the future, since capitalism might join socialism in the History books.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[oztiks]

And hence the reason why the article ends with the sentiment "they haven't seen our evidence yet" like statement. Apple really needs to check itself on this, they do not want to make enemies of google on this one, they would be very sorry if they did.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[SomePgmr]

Looks like the file date is 2000 and the issue date is in 2005. Am I looking in the wrong place?

The funny thing is, none of the actual heavy lifting in this patent appears to be theirs. It's all in the cited patents held by other companies. All they appear to have said here was, "we're patenting the idea of putting a textbox in Mac OS to do this stuff everyone else already invented and patented".

I'm a little amazed that such a thing can be considered a valid invention. It reads like, "Well John over here invented the car, but I'm going to patent the idea of painting it blue as if that's an invention".

But I'm not an attorney... I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[longk]

Increasing abuse is probably the quickest route to having reform. Everyone "laying low" and having the current system in place allows for targeted attacks is much more harming in the long run. Please let them all go crazy and block each other until politicians wake up.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Grieviant]

Ah yes, another unbiased tidbit from the guy who last week posted a thread about his "genuine concern" that the patent system was under attack by FRAND patent holders, only to be forced into spam-trolling his own thread because not everyone agreed.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Joce640k]

You say that in jest but I'm sure they'd try it if they had a suitable patent.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anne Thwacks]

No need to abolish patents. Just to acknowledge that "if you can implement the patent without access to the written description, them it is obvious to anyone sufficiently skilled in the art" and thus invalid.

However, the WTO should blast America into orbit for allowing this kind of injunction, which is clearly intended to prevent foreign competition. Yay, lets have a trade war. Korea can ban the import of American beer and DVDs in retaiation!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

On the surface of it, it sounds awfully stupid to me

Stupid or not, Surface is a registered trademark of Microsoft - pay up.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Piata]

This is the best car analogy in the history of Slashdot.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[OzPeter]

I'll go one further and say patent abolition is the only way to stop it.

Sure you can frame the war in terms of being an abolitionist and talk about rights etc, but remember that the other side will only see this as
 
The war of Northern (Californian) Aggression!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[mrchaotica]

This is simply anti-capitalism stated on a single sentence. Basically, from what I grasp, the idea is "we need to avoid that competitor's action because we would lose money if competition were to happen".

Patents are inherently anti-competitive. In fact, limiting competition is their entire function.

(I almost said "their entire purpose," but then corrected myself: the "purpose" of patents is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Whether patents' purpose and function jive with each other is another issue entirely...)

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Antimatter3009]

If this gets upheld, Apple will be able to get an injunction on every Android phone because this is a core OS feature. I'd say that affects consumers. Plus, it seems like there's a pretty good chance that Google could find some patent between theirs and Motorola's that applies to the iPhone, which could lead to a counter ban. Maybe (hopefully) it won't get that far, but this is the patent armageddon that people have been worrying about with all these lawsuits.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[snspdaarf]

You mean that silly bitch Mildred came back with a case of Mr. Pube, instead of Dr. Pepper, because she bought soda based on looks ("It was in a can of similar shape and color. How was I to know it was not what I wanted?") instead of reading the words on the packaging? Outrageous! The courts should protect people too stupid to be out without an escort!

Maybe if we didn't behave like children, the legal system would not treat us as such.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[mark-t]

"if you can implement the patent without access to the written description, them it is obvious to anyone sufficiently skilled in the art" and thus invalid.

I understand where you are coming form with this point of view, but that also means that anything which is independently invented by two or more people can't be patented.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Bing Tsher E]

It's a cult. They probably believe their own shit.

Jobs didn't take his pilgrimage to India to learn how to code in Assembly Language.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[fnj]

Bingo. I'm with you. Patents are evil by NATURE. The CONCEPT is wrong; not just the implementation. Reform is meaningless blather. As soon as you let scum sucking corporations claim ownership of THOUGHT, real free enterprise and human and societal rights are all down the toilet. The people of 200 odd years ago, who could only think in terms of the invention of the cotton gin when they considered the value and fairness of patents, could not have seen in their wildest dreams the legal cesspool which would eventually result from runaway patents, but today WE can and we should kick them the hell out of our system.

The US Constitution only ALLOWS patents; it doesn't MANDATE them. Congress "shall have Power". The corollary is that Congress may choose NOT to exercise this particular power. It can and should undo this morrass by revoking ALL patents NOW, disbanding the patent office, and never issuing any further patents.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Smauler]

That's kind of the point. The entire purpose of patents is to protect inventions made by someone which would not have been released to the public otherwise. If the patented invention could be invented by someone else anyway, the patent is purely a money making exercise, and not in the public good.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[joocemann]

Actually, my patent on square boxes has been interpreted by my new lawyer to include boxes with "square" (90 degree) corners. It now includes rectangular boxes, and yours is obsolete.

Thank god for lawyers!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[dbIII]

From Wikipedia: "Dogpile began operation in November 1996"
I seem to remember other search engine aggregators that even predated google.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[AngryDeuce]

They could just be using iPad as the only name they know of for a new fangled flat computer.

This. I saw it myself with iPod; working at CompUSA back in the day, I'd say 75% of people would come in looking for an 'iPod' and then ask me why I was only showing them the ones Apple made and not the Sansui's, Samsungs, Zunes, and all the other branded ones. When I'd point out that they asked for an iPod, they'd respond "Yeah, but I don't necessarily just want the Apple iPods...these other iPods are much cheaper" while they're sitting there with an iRiver in their hands.

I would have to educate them that iPod is a specific product only made by Apple, and what they were actually looking for was an MP3 player, or later, when they started being able to play video and such, a digital media player. Still, a decent percentage would respond "Yeah, but everyone just calls them iPods anyway", and then I would have to fight the overwhelming urge to tell them, "No, actually, only fucking ignoramuses call them all iPods."

Among the technologically illiterate, iPod is pretty much a genericized trademark at this point. It doesn't even stop there; I've had people use the term iPhone to describe any smartphone and, yes, iPad to describe any tablet, albeit not nearly as much as the iPod thing, but that's just a matter of time, honestly.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[dbIII]

American beer

Americans make beer?
Come on now, even the French make better beer (Louis Pasteur was the inventor of modern Lager).

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Pieroxy]

if I was Samsung I wouldn't sell them so much as a screw.

You'd shoot yourself in the foot for banning your biggest customer. Hopefully, that's not *your* revenue stream we're talking about, so that you can easily say you wouldn't sell them a screw.

Hint: If Sammy drops Apple as a customer, they'd need a major restructuring and they'd also need something to do with the 100 plants they have serving Apple.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Pieroxy]

The problem is, everything can be invented twice...

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Pieroxy]

There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO, to work your butt off 24/7 for years to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?

I guess not.

Patents are here for a reason, and that reason is perfectly valid. Of course, the process can be perfected. For example, I think patents should be adapted to the field they apply to. For instance, software patents should last 5 years max.

But remove patents altogether and all hell will break lose.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[milkmage]

which Apple says is the basis of Siri
basis being the key word.. not Siri itself. The fact that the input method is voice is irrelevant.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ultranova]

I seem to remember other search engine aggregators that even predated google.

I'm pretty sure using multiple sources and aggregating the results predates the Internet, the printing press, and possibly even civilization. In fact, given how bacteria exchange plasmids and are thus capable of aggregating genes from multiple sources, it might even predate multicellular life.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

They have 120b in assets, assets are not what's in the bank rather what the company owns, that is property, intellectual property that is some guy with a calculator guessed what they think the IP is worth and added that to there asset value.

The company float is what's in the bank and it goes to shareholders in whats called a dividend, so no they buy Google their stock would take a massive hit and be worthless because their shareholders don't get paid.

Also note assets are cumulative of all time what took the company its entire lifespan to accumulate, they sold off their assets to buy Google, they'd be IPless, Cashless and need to borrow to recover, which they wouldn't get cause they SOLD their assets.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ifiwereasculptor]

There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO,

Hell yes!

to work your butt off 24/7 for years

I'm confused. Weren't we talking about CEOs? When did the subject change?

to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?

You're talking about moth breeding patents, I assume? Never heard of them. Is it an allegory? Anyway, if Google makes it better than I do and/or offers it at a better price point, that's only fair and what markets are all about. It beats not being even able to start your project because it necessarily depends on a fuckton of other patented stuff and would result in you being sued into oblivion.

I guess not.

Patents are here for a reason, and that reason is perfectly valid. Of course, the process can be perfected. For example, I think patents should be adapted to the field they apply to. For instance, software patents should last 5 years max.

Hardware patents I could see lasting about 5 years. Software patents should last about 5 minutes. Patenting software is like patenting specific mathemathical operations ("oh, no, you can't do 4+5, I have patented that already... try 4+4+1, if it isn't already patented").

But remove patents altogether and all hell will break lose.

Patents are here and hell is loose. I don't know if metaphorically or literally because of the huge amount of lawyers involved.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

"Apple has been losing their ardent followers for some time now. People have seen android as a very viable alternative, and are switching over. Apple knows this, or they wouldn't be resorting to these bully tactics."

Right that must be why iPhone satisfsction ratings are so low compared to Android manufacturers....

http://androidcommunity.com/android-loses-out-to-iphone-bigtime-in-jd-power-satisfaction-ratings-20110318/

And why Apple is seeing decreasing revenue and profit compared to Android manufacturers....

Oh wait.....

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[AmberBlackCat]

I remember when I first got to use search engines in the mid 90's, and they had some site (search.com I think) that would collect search results from all the real search engines and present them on one page.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[atriusofbricia]

If this gets upheld, Apple will be able to get an injunction on every Android phone because this is a core OS feature. I'd say that affects consumers. Plus, it seems like there's a pretty good chance that Google could find some patent between theirs and Motorola's that applies to the iPhone, which could lead to a counter ban. Maybe (hopefully) it won't get that far, but this is the patent armageddon that people have been worrying about with all these lawsuits.

On the contrary, this is exactly what needs to happen. Google should search their patents and find every single one that could apply to every single Apple device. Once they've built their case they should, without a seconds warning, nuke Apple with everything. Seek injunctions against Apple's entire business. Once granted, bring them to the table to sort all this stupidity out.

It's either that or everyone but Apple suffers a death of a thousand cuts.

Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[atriusofbricia]

American beer

Americans make beer?
Come on now, even the French make better beer (Louis Pasteur was the inventor of modern Lager).

You're out of date on your jokes. American beer (not the macrobrews) is quite good these days. Have to find someone else's beer to make fun of. :)

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Imagix]

Yep. If multiple people can independently develop the same solution to the problem, then that would be a fairly strong argument that the solution is fairly obvious.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Stickerboy]

The problem is, everything can be invented twice...

That's the whole point of reverse engineering. And it's not a problem. It's a common sense limitation on patents - if it takes your competition all of 30 seconds to reverse engineer your software patent for X, without seeing the code or the specifications for it, the patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Obviousness.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[mark-t]

Do you have any idea how many times duplicate patent applications happen? The mere notion that two people could come up with the same idea and produce a similar enough specification for it should render it obvious and non-patentable would, I dare say, render virtually *ALL* patents as invalid, including many things that are entirely reasonable to have a patent on.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[SternisheFan]

Right that must be why iPhone satisfsction ratings are so low compared to Android manufacturers....

http://androidcommunity.com/android-loses-out-to-iphone-bigtime-in-jd-power-satisfaction-ratings-20110318/

And why Apple is seeing decreasing revenue and profit compared to Android manufacturers....

Oh wait.....

All right, JD Powers did a survey that says Apple buyers are a happy bunch. Good for them, they use an amazing device. Now, what does that have to do with the fact that Apple wants to make it impossible for me to buy a Galaxy? That is unfair, let the free market eventually decide. It's about choice, and to not have a choice forced down my throat. Thank you and have a nice day.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[murphtall]

All frisbees are flying disks but not all flying disks are frisbees. All jet skis are watercraft not not all watercraft are jet skis. Yup. Sometimes the band name is ubiquitous with the product. When I was growing up down south I distinctly remember asking for a coke. What kind my mom retorted. A dr pepper was the response. Coke had become a word for soda. iPad and tablet computer are doing much the same these days.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO, to work your butt off 24/7 for years to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?

I guess not.

Patents are here for a reason, and that reason is perfectly valid. Of course, the process can be perfected. For example, I think patents should be adapted to the field they apply to. For instance, software patents should last 5 years max.

But remove patents altogether and all hell will break lose.

There have been touch screen devices way way waaaaay before apple put out their Iphone/Ipad stuff. (remember all the PDA's?) As far as seeing a competitor catch up and surpass what took Apple "Years to invent" (uhh invent what?) has more to do with them resting on their laurels. Nothing they have put out since the originals has been very innovative or even much of a step forward. Basically they do a minor hardware upgrade and slap on a new number.... Iphone X s or whatever. It would have also helped them if they had made their mobile platform open source such as android is, especially since most of the os is *BSD based.

Also I think the patent system is completely insane. It was not designed for our current age of rapid technology development. Also people should realize that, for most things (apple or google tv, smartphones...etc) there are multiple ways of making something without using or infringing on anything specific, but still have a product that works very a like, with similiar functions.

I think patents are getting out of hand in that they are now used for covering much to broad of a concept, instead of specific designs or code. I don't think that was ever what the "spirit" of the patent system was originally. I think it was more to prevent direct backwards engineering of an object and then having another company make an exact, replica. That means all the circuitry and electrical traces, components, way it was put together, materials used, dimensions of all items, and code are exactly the same or contain extremely large quantities, too much so for it to be a coincidence.

Removing patents in their current form would not cause "all hell to break lose". Patent sue happy troll companies might not be happy. or companies that lack any innovation or motivation to update will feel it greatly, but you know what. I think if such a thing ever happens it will be a golden era in progress for us. I think we'd probably instantly advance like 10-50+ years in just a few months if not less. Even just plain research is getting crushed by the weight of all these crisscrossing patents, especially in the medical field with big pharma stifling each other with drug patents.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ganjadude]

Why does samsung keep making components for apple? Couldnt they threaten to pull the supply line from under apple if they keep this shit up?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[citizenr]

if I was Samsung I wouldn't sell them so much as a screw.

You'd shoot yourself in the foot for banning your biggest customer. Hopefully, that's not *your* revenue stream we're talking about, so that you can easily say you wouldn't sell them a screw.

Hint: If Sammy drops Apple as a customer, they'd need a major restructuring and they'd also need something to do with the 100 plants they have serving Apple.

Famous last words of Walmart suppliers before they go out of business replaced by in store brand.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah it's not like Samsung did ever go out of its way to make a product similar to Apples. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2011/09/samsung-copying-cjr.jpg

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[tqk]

Faster and more powerful hardware? Are you kidding me? Maybe not right now because Apple doesn't release some ...

Interesting. I distinctly remember seeing just this anti-Android, pro-iBauble screed in another thread yesterday. How much do they pay you for your copypasta, shill?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

You said:

"Did'ja ever notice how when a bully is confronted with the truth, they get louder....When confronted with facts, they get confused,..."

You were confronted with "facts" that disagree with your assertions...

"That's when they become more desperate and turn to larger bullying tactics. "

Apple revenue and profit are increasing does that seem "desperate"?

"Apple has been losing their ardent followers for some time now. People have seen android as a very viable alternative, and are switching over. Apple knows this, or they wouldn't be resorting to these bully tactics"

The "facts" above disagree with you, as well as the fact that more Android users are leaving for the iPhone than vice versa....

"Now, what does that have to do with the fact that Apple wants to make it impossible for me to buy a Galaxy?"

Absolutely nothing...it just goes to show you that every single thing you posted as a fact above can be shown to be wrong by the evidence

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

"Of course. Most i fans are fanboys"

So 30% of the population are rabid fans?

If your product isn't creating "fans" and repeat buyers, you're doing something wrong.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Grishnakh]

Does your patent for rectangular boxes have them with rounded corners? If not, then it's totally irrelevant. Apple's enormous innovation is rounding the corners of the rectangle!

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. The macrobrews ARE "American beer"; they're by far the most popular, that's why you just called them "macrobrews". So it's still entirely reasonable to bash "American beer" based on the qualities of the macrobrews.

Your argument is like trying to defend some criticism of "American cars" because the Tesla is different from all the Detroit cars. A tiny little niche maker with vanishingly small volumes is not representative of the industry.

When Bud Light, Miller, Coors, and all that other crap go the way of the Dodo, then you can tell people their American beer jokes are out of date. But not while they're easily the most popular thing out there.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. Since when did any fucking CEO invent anything at all? That's the most idiotic statement I've seen on here in a while about patents.

I have an idea: how about we change the law so patents can't be transferred to anyone, and can't be owned by a company? Make it so they can only be owned by the people who actually invented the thing, not their employer, and they can't be sold or transferred to anyone else. Then people really will have an incentive to invent things, and companies will greatly value the people who do the inventing, rather than just give them $500 and make millions on the patents.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Thanks for bringing up a point that is often missed: Patents are an optional power grant that Congress may choose to exercise. I think that innovation would run like a the flaming chicken on a Firebird Trans Am without patents.

Here is one of my favorite references on the subject: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[russotto]

You do realize Apple could buy Google, right?

Only if they could get Larry, Sergey, and Eric to sell; between the three they control the lion's share of the stock.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[shutdown -p now]

In this particular case, we're talking about Galaxy Nexus - the phone, not the tablet. If you've ever seen it, it looks nothing like an iPhone.

The patents here aren't design patents, either. It's a bunch of crap like "slide to unlock" and "enable voice input when user taps a textbox".

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[k_187]

Yes, but patents don't protect idea. They protect implementations. You can make a widget that does X, and I can make another widget that also does X. If they do them in sufficiently different ways; we can both patent our widgets. The problem is that overly broad patents are being issued.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[BasilBrush]

Did'ja ever notice how when a bully is confronted with the truth, they get louder.

Did'ja ever notice how when an innocent man is confronted with lies, they get louder.

Given that it works both ways, you can't tell who's in the right from someone getting louder.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[HiThere]

Correction:
the stated "purpose" of patents is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts

I'm a bit too cynical to believe that the actual implementation is that far from the stated purpose by accident.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[HiThere]

You have a short memory. Apple is no worse than MS has been. That may be faint praise, but it's justifiable.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[4phun]

if I was Samsung I wouldn't sell them so much as a screw.

Hint: If Sammy drops Apple as a customer, they'd need a major restructuring and they'd also need something to do with the 100 plants they have serving Apple.

Famous last words of Walmart suppliers before they go out of business replaced by in store brand.

Lets see this week it was clear it was Apple who now is in the driver's seat and Apple just dropped Samsung as a supplier for their new iPad 3 screens effective August - September 2012.

Poor Sammy or is it the poor Ferengy merchants from Star Wars where Google got the Android mascot?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[4phun]

"Apple has been losing their ardent followers for some time now. People have seen android as a very viable alternative, and are switching over. Apple knows this, or they wouldn't be resorting to these bully tactics."

Right that must be why iPhone satisfsction ratings are so low compared to Android manufacturers....

http://androidcommunity.com/android-loses-out-to-iphone-bigtime-in-jd-power-satisfaction-ratings-20110318/

And why Apple is seeing decreasing revenue and profit compared to Android manufacturers....

Oh wait.....

Honestly the moderators are not doing their job! This post above not only is delusional and but an outright lie backed up by an old 2011 post to an Android FanBoy site. Don't you just love the power of the Internet to mislead others?

Apple' lead in user satisfaction with the iPhone over all other smartphones appears to be so great it is untouchable.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[stewbacca]

I'd rather have a core OS infringement than a hardware infringement. Seems easy to fix the software, but changing the hardware would be a huge business expense. Then again, (not to troll here), maybe Samsung shouldn't tread on such dangerous waters and come up with something that's easy to differentiate. Seems hundreds of other brand/model combinations have figured it out.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[stewbacca]

And here I thought we Americans were the ignorant ones. Americans make some of the best craft beers on the planet, if not the best. Stereotypes are a bitch.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[zxsqkty]

This x2. My wife's on android while I've an iphone, but to my 4 year old they're both 'iphones'.

I won't say which she prefers else I'd be called an Apple shill...

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Jspider]

CEO's don't develop projects themselves they send it off to an R&D department. This is theoretically why you would have such massive damages otherwise. Steve Jobs didn't work his butt off for years but it may have taken alot of test and adjust for a product like the first iPhone though we wouldn't really know how much (I doubt it was 24/7 for years, hardware barriers were probably a bigger issue for our current set of devices then design issues).

The issue with applying patents to design in all of this is that Google DID do all of its own work. Google didn't actually copy any lines of Apples code they saw the general look and feel of the device and figured they would recreate it. Unlike taking apart a washer and creating molds of parts or other reverse engineering tricks Google simply put their own spin on a look and feel project and hired tons of programmers and designers to create something that is inspired by iOS but does not have any single piece that is actually taken FROM iOS. To my knowledge Google has not broken into Apple and stolen code or even made it a practice to hire disgruntled Apple employees.

In fact there are a great many things about Androids design that differentiate itself from Apples. Patents prevent the idea of mutual discovery and are this the most strict form of IP control one can receive for an idea. This really harms computers as software innovation probably has more in common with book writing then it does with inventing a new form of internal combustion engine. We don't patent movie ideas or similar methods of writing books because it would unnecessarily complicate the product and it is a product which sells on art more then much else which is by and large the TRUE power to iDevices anyways.

I'd also question the need for 5 year terms on software patents when its abundantly clear that Apple has gained plenty of money through first to market advantage. Since iPhone was first introduced we've had YEARS of Apple supremacy and Android has only in the last year really become comparable function wise. Its actually had a couple of years (a software eternity) of being known as the less functional less stable platform that had flexibility as its own focus.

Since you can visibly tell the difference between iOS and Android and both have different design philosophy's and NEITHER company copied their work off of their classmates, in what way has Apple been harmed?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ozmanjusri]

I seem to recall email apps at least as early as 1990 detecting email addresses and phone numbers, modem apps offering to dial said number on a modem, etc.

I think there was an aRexx script on Amigas that did that even earlier. I have vague memories of discussions about how to get around the use of @ in email as well as in AmigaGuide and MultiView.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Totenglocke]

Well given the powers SCOTUS recently granted the Federal government, I can see Apple starting to petition Congress that they need to pass a law mandating everyone over the age of 18 purchase a new iPhone at least once every other year or face a $1,000 "tax" each year that they do not comply.

I used to buy some Apple products and then ditched my iPhone for an Android phone - and that was just a matter of personal preference. However, once Apple decided to start filing bogus lawsuits instead of making a better product, that's why I said "Fuck Apple, I'm never buying from them again".

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[atriusofbricia]

You have a short memory. Apple is no worse than MS has been. That may be faint praise, but it's justifiable.

Not at all. I very well remember MSFT's actions. They are living memory for me, as it were. However, I don't recall them suing everyone in existence (which is to say in the same market as them) and attempting to force them out of the market over such trivial things. They at least tried, sorta, to innovate and compete. As opposed to innovating a little bit and then suing anyone who catches up with them and surpasses them.

Also, MSFT usually went for licensing fees instead of bans from the market.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Coren22]

I've had people ask me if my Tundra was a f150...it isn't beyond the possible.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Kalriath]

At least patents actually expire! Then again, reform is still desperately needed. There's no excuse for granting patents on the fucking blindingly obvious.

We need that judge that told Apple and Samsung to get the fuck out to rule on this.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Kalriath]

No, not at all. His first refutation is absolutely correct - "Smart Tags" have been a function of Word since Word 2000. Does Apple really want to challenge an angry Microsoft?

Of course to his fourth one, I contend that even Apple doesn't have that - it's almost fucking impossible to hit the "No, iOS, you're fucking wrong and stop correcting this perfectly valid word you dick" button.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Kalriath]

IBM is pretty inept these days. They're only capable of preying on government customers.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Kalriath]

No, they couldn't. I imagine they have a defined length on their supply contract, with heavy penalties for early termination without cause (and "you're suing us" doesn't count as cause - nothing short of "god smote all our factories" would count), and besides that even if it is the same physical company (it may be a subsidiary) the electronic component division would be separated by internal "walls" from the mobile division.

Also, the most told lie in the history of the world is likely "we apologise for the inconvenience" and/or "your call is important to us".

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[mrchaotica]

They seemed to work well enough back in the 18th and 19th centuries. (Then again, Ben Franklin never patented any of his inventions -- the Franklin Stove, bifocals, etc. -- so maybe he was skeptical from the beginning.)

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[dbIII]

You don't export any of the "craft beers" so we only have your word and Harry Dresden novels to go by :)
The joke was in response to "Korea can ban the import of American beer", so it's about the stuff exported from the USA. Get over it. It's like an Australian bashing Fosters mass produced swill (almost as bad as the US mass market stuff) instead of Coopers, not like an Irishman discussing why Kilkenny is just that much better than Guinness.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Cinder6]

It would have also helped them if they had made their mobile platform open source such as android is, especially since most of the os is *BSD based.

Helped them in what regard? Apple's iPhone rakes in significantly more money for them than does Samsung's entire mobile division, and Samsung is the biggest Android manufacturer. Making iOS open source and (presumably) licensing it out to other manufacturers would probably hurt Apple's sales, not help them.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

Did I really need to put tags around the post?

1. Reread the post
2. Read the "Android fanboy" site and see which company has the highest user satisfaction rating....

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[oxdas]

FUD, pure and simple. Apple paid Samsung a total of less then $7 billion last year. Samsung Electronics made more than $140 billion in revenue. In addition, 70% of Samsung Electronics $11.5 billion in profits came from their own smartphones. Apple is a blip on Samsung's earning report, nothing more.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[oxdas]

I wouldn't feel too bad for Sammy. Their display division lost millions last year. Nearly all their profits came from their own devices.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[oxdas]

R&D spending for 2011:

Samsung spent $9.1 billion
Google spent $5.2 billion
Apple spent $2.6 billion

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Shompol]

Please learn how patents really work. This is an article from 1990, but nothing has changed -- the patents are here to protect big corporation from competition, and serve no other purpose.

and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing*

Ok, here goes:

2. You hire a law firm with 6 layers, who ask a modest compensation of $200/hour * 6, and go to court

3. Google claims that they do not infringe because you patented "something great made out of steel" and their thing is "made out of steel with plastic inserts". They happen to have 20 lawyers on the case who know exactly what they are doing. Sorry!

4. Google counter-sues to recoup their expenses to feed 20 lawyers, plus finds about 15 patents where your "something great" infringed.

5. You file for bankruptcy

6. Google buys your patent at the auction. You know, just in case.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[cheesybagel]

Thanks for downmodding my logged in post Apple loser...

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[4phun]

Did I really need to put tags around the post?

1. Reread the post
2. Read the "Android fanboy" site and see which company has the highest user satisfaction rating....

Here is a reasonable challenge, find a valid reference to a valid study by unbiased researchers in the last week, month, that Android anything has the highest user satisfaction compared to Apple. Android blogs and fanboy sites do not even remotely count as valid, free of distortion. Wall Street and related sites do count.

Common sense says that if was even remotely true Apple would not command so much of the global market for smartphones with a decent profit compared to the profit starved Android manufacturers. Wall Street is now increasingly aware that even Android has been a bad deal to date and doesn't make any decent money for Google by Google's own admission.

If anyone says that Apple manages to dominate by advertising, answer this question, Isn't Google's whole business built on serving targeted advertising to the masses via the Internet? Google has the strongest hand in the world for stuffing everything down the throat of the gullible which should have guaranteed that Android was the most profitable global venture in Internet history.

Waiting.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Shompol]

Ahh, "satisfaction ratings". Do you know that their outcome magically shifts in the direction where the "rater" is inclined to shift it? Was this "rating" sponsored by Apple? Is there a way to verify this rating's "rates"? No? I though so.

How about a "people voting with their wallets" rating? Will you look at that, 59% Android vs 23% iOS. I guess Apple DOES have to worry about a thing or two, after all. Maybe it is because "you are holding it wrong" issue? khe hehehe

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[hairyfish]

There are other things to consider. Would you be happy, as a CEO, to work your butt off 24/7 for years to invent something great, and just when it catches up and start making real money, see Google make the *very exact same thing* (with a different logo) on a much much much larger scale (because they're so much bigger) and make you go back into mothingness?

I guess not.

You guess wrong. If I invented something that made my business the most valuable company in the world, then I would expect my products to be copied and improved on. I would expect that my future success should rely on me releasing more innovative products, not by merely cashing in on my one half decent creation from a few years ago and suing everyone else who tried to compete with me. Maybe that's why I'm not a CEO?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Compaqt]

dogpile.com

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[ignavus]

This is simply anti-capitalism stated on a single sentence. Basically, from what I grasp, the idea is "we need to avoid that competitor's action because we would lose money if competition were to happen".

Patents are inherently anti-competitive. In fact, limiting competition is their entire function.

(I almost said "their entire purpose," but then corrected myself: the "purpose" of patents is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Whether patents' purpose and function jive with each other is another issue entirely...)

Sometimes I wish that moderation points went all the way up to 6.

Patents are anti-competitive. They should only be issued where their benefits EXCEED their anti-competitive costs. Governments and private firms often act as though patents were cost-free. They are not cost-free.

Patents are a huge bubble waiting to burst if people persist in ignoring their cost.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Pieroxy]

You'd call 5% of your revenue a "blip" !!!! Let's say I earn 100K a year, for simplicity. I can tell you I'd think twice about letting down 5K just for ideological reasons. That would be $417 a month I nee to take out of my budget, and I can tell you I'd have to make more than minor adjustments.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Pieroxy]

If you compare the revenue made out from software, I can tell you open source software is a heck of a lot lower than closed source software. By a huge margin! By any measure, open source software is lowering the value of software in terms of $$$. Now, I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

But not everyone is out there for ideological reasons, and we have no legitimacy thinking everyone should encompass our ideology about software. Most people are out there to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. It's been that way forever and I don't think it'll stop overnight.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

And you still didn't read the link. The link from the Android fan site showed that Apple had the highest rating. It's called sarcasm dude.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

Apple made 70% + of all profit worldwide in cellphones last quarter. Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint all reported over 50% of their smart phone sales were iPhones. When the iPhone is available on their carrier, the majority in the US choose it.

But you really think JD Edwards was paid by Apple?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[tenco]

" 1. A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked"

MS Word did that long before Apple.

Sounds more like "HTML viewer" to me.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[4phun]

And you still didn't read the link. The link from the Android fan site showed that Apple had the highest rating. It's called sarcasm dude.

My bad

I finally got your point as he humbly reminds himself never to again challenge any one on slashdot with a low six digit id.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Khan Fused]

A lot of "American" beers are no longer precisely American.

Anheiser-Busch / InBev was formed in 2009 when Belgian/Brazillian InBev merged with Anehiser-Busch. The merged corp. is based in Belgium, and they own over 200 brands worldwide, including Budweiser and Michelob, along with a couple of labels that I thought were/still are Microbrews (such as Goose Island).

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[mdervin2001]

Did'ja ever notice how when a bully is confronted with the truth, they get louder. They start to attempt to intimidate by any means at their disposal. When confronted with facts, they get confused, and don't know what to do as their audience catches on and begins to drift away. That's when they become more desperate and turn to larger bullying tactics. Then the bullied either stands their ground or meekly lets the bully win. There are times when the best course of action for the bullied is to walk away, and hopefully live to fight another day. IMHO, for this is not one. Apple has been losing their ardent followers for some time now. People have seen android as a very viable alternative, and are switching over. Apple knows this, or they wouldn't be resorting to these bully tactics. I root for the underdog in life, and love it when the bullies lose.

Really, Apple is the bully? In one corner you have Apple, a consumer products company that was left a little over 10 years ago, in the other corner you have Google, Motorola, HTC, Samsung, RIM, HP, Dell, IBM, Lenovo, Microsoft, LG, Acer, SONY, Amazon, Asus and a couple of dozen other companies.

And Apple is the bully.

You sound like one of those evangelicals who cry out "I'm being oppressed" when the cashier clerk says "Happy Holidays."

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[hairyfeet]

Have you SEEN Win 8? Or looked at the figures for WinPhone? Or looked at how much money they wasted on kin and Zune?

I think a damned good argument could be made that MSFT IS IBM, another once big cheese that now only have a legacy business that will continue to make money but who will never ever be top dog ever again. hell there is even some debate as to whether the X360 has made a dime in profit yet or not, because one has to figure in the billions they spent on it and Xbox 1 and the 2 billion plus in repairs over RRoD.

So acting like its still 1998 and Gates is running the company is just retarded. Ballmer is a shitty CEO, the vast majority of their products other than the legacy Windows and Office markets have flopped, and the future is obviously mobile which MSFT doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in on. its over, its done, the fat lady is down the street having a sammich.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[pestilence669]

Apple invests a metric assload of cash toward R&D. They cut in a partner, like Samsung, to develop components. Samsung has grown mightily, in fact, by Apple's own products. They share the wealth, so to speak. Then, Samsung comes along and just copies an entire fucking product in a shitty way and cries foul when the law stops them. I support capitalism, but not communism. WTF is wrong with everybody?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[HiThere]

You are right that MS didn't usually use lawyers. But you need to consider that not all of their foul deeds were done against their customers. (or Apple either, of course). Apple has been all in favor of closed garden approaches since the days of the Apple ][, so that's nothing new. MS has been innovative in the field of EULAs. In that field Apple has been a follower.

As for "bans from the market", they didn't go for legal bans, but you might ask Stacker about being banned in other ways, or Novell, or WordPerfect, or ...

For that matter, you could even ask IBM about how honest and ethical MS was. (Not that IBM was any shining light. I don't know about their current status, as currently I don't deal with them, and they don't have the large public interface that they used to.)

Apple's sole superiority over MS has always been that they prefer to sell elegant and well-designed merchandise. It still is. I suspect that with the departure of Jobs this will decay, as that's the kind of thing that usually happens. There are, however, exceptions.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

Apple invests a metric assload of cash toward R&D. They cut in a partner, like Samsung, to develop components. Samsung has grown mightily, in fact, by Apple's own products. They share the wealth, so to speak. Then, Samsung comes along and just copies an entire fucking product in a shitty way and cries foul when the law stops them. I support capitalism, but not communism. WTF is wrong with everybody?

Exactly. I wish I had mod points right now.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

Although I hate your post and everything it stands for, I REALLY liked that line from NCIS:

"Gibbs, what did Ducky look like when he was younger?" "Illya Kuryakin."

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[matt_gaia]

... Perhaps the words on the box, the different software, the different colour, the different interface should have tipped me off, but heck, they were both RECTANGULAR with a BUTTON.

Not to be pedantic (although, who am I kidding, this is /.) but the devil's machine, I mean tablet in question, actually doesn't have a button on the face of it. And I know this because I am typing this up on a Galaxy Tab 10.1. I But otherwise, yes, FU Apple.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

Apple is in danger of triggering Armageddon. Google has been fairly good natured so far, but if they decide to start a war things can only get worse for the consumer.

Good Natured, you say? Eh, it appears, not so much...

Google start a war against Apple? Looks like they have already been doing exactly that...

So now what?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.

Score 5: Insightful??? Really? And without a scintilla of evidence, too.

Nice, slashdot mods. Nice.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

They [Microsoft] at least tried, sorta, to innovate and compete.

Here are some prime examples of Microsoft's idea of "innovation".

Oh, and as far as "compete" goes, I think you really mean "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", don't you?

As opposed to innovating a little bit and then suing anyone who catches up with them and surpasses them.

Well, first: Apple has innovated a LOTTA bit; and

second: Suing people that have infringed your patents is what businesses, especially tech-driven ones, er, do...

Don't imply that Apple is The Great Satan(sm) when they are doing what they have to do to protect the interests of their stockholders, and what has unfortunately become the only way to defend patents.

It used to be that a patent-holder (even a little guy), could send a C&D letter to an alleged infringer, and the infringer (even a big guy) was loathe to continue to violate the patent once "on notice".

But then, I think in the late 1980s or early '90s, there was a Court (don't remember if it was SCOTUS, or not) decision that turned all that on its head. NOW, the (alleged) infringer is allowed to keep on infringin' UNTIL THE OUTCOME OF AN INFRINGEMENT ACTION (!!!)

Short digression: One of the worst things that came of that decision is that a "little guy" patent-holders basically have no chance with deep-pocket infringers; because the deep-pockets can keep on filing dilatory motions and discovery requests until the little guy runs out of money... [/digression]

But, the other thing that happened was that now, everyone felt pressure to "sue immediately"; because, as the patent-holder, the quicker you can get a decision, the quicker you can get injunctive (and/or monetary) relief. So, because of this, in patent disputes (esp. between TWO well-heeled parties) everyone immediately files suit these days.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Kalriath]

I dunno about the figures, but I kind of like WP7 personally. Of course I'm not the mass market, so my preferences have little effect on the market figures as a whole.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[Karlt1]

"The thing is, there are constantly new Android devices and updates. Apple doesn't release that often and doesn't see a lot of innovation. If I buy the best Android phone now, in a few short months there will be a better one. Not so with the iPhone or iPad. I guarantee that those ratings are not the same today as they were a year and 3 months ago. Android devices now outsell iPhones:"

If I buy an iPhone now and Apple releases a new version of iOS -- I get the new OS the same day it is released? Can you say the same?

Sure there are constant Android updates -- what are the chances that your shiny new phone gets the update? How many new Android phones are still shipping with outdated versions of Android?

Success for a company is defined by making money not "market share"...Let's see how Apple is doing compared to Android....

http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/03/first-apples-rank-in-mobile-phone-profitability-and-revenues/

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[stewbacca]

I don't drink good beer from countries like England and Germany in the United States because it's not very good by the time it gets here, or it is massed-produced by one of our crappy megabreweries and relabeled as "Becks" or "Guiness" or "Staropramen"...(not that these are excellent beers, only that they are extra not good as import beer in the US).

Most craft brewers in the US worth their name in salt wont even ship to other states, let alone foreign countries.

And I have no idea what the etymology of "...name in salt" is.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[NatasRevol]

No, they have $120B in cash & short term securities. Go look at their financial statements.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

You're using an intentionally sensationalist article about Google's cookies being stored on iPhones (OMG!!!! NEVAH!!!) possibly (but not likely and more likely to be user confusion) in violation of the user's privacy settings, when users browse Google sites as evidence that Google is at war with Apple? Really? REALLY?!

So when the entire PLANET (including Planet Slashdot) turns a Celltower cache into a "ZOMG! Apple iz teh Spies!", even to the point of prompting Congressional interest, that's ok; but I am to be villified for a simple Slashdot comment that links to a SLASHDOT article about Google ACTUALLY targeting iOS SPECIFICALLY, to TRACK BROWSING?!? And you have the TEMERITY to blame "user confusion" as the MOST LIKELY explanation?!?

Really? REALLY?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[atriusofbricia]

Apple has long since passed the worst of MSFT's evil.

Score 5: Insightful??? Really?
And without a scintilla of evidence, too.

Nice, slashdot mods. Nice.

And you'd call attempting to seize control of the smartphone and tablet markets by claiming that any product which resembles yours and has certain base features which has loads of prior art what? Even if we presume there is infringement, was there an offer of licensing? Of settlement? Nope.

"Remove them from the market. We'd rather not compete with something that is better than us."

It's cool, Apple will come out with another iPhone with a somewhat better processor and screen. Also, perhaps some more memory. Certain groups of people will proclaim it the best there is and could be and a revolution in the space.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[atriusofbricia]

Well, first: Apple has innovated a LOTTA bit; and

You know, this gets tossed around as gospel quite a lot and accepted as such. So I'm curious... name these massive innovations.
For the purposes of this:
Nothing they bought from someone else and merely integrated, that isn't innovation.
Nothing they copied from someone else either directly nor with slight to middling tweaks, that also isn't innovation.
No citing merely dropping or adopting technology before someone else. While that is laudable, it by definition isn't innovation. It is merely adoption.
No cases of "it was implemented somewhere else, now it is in in iOS/OSX so now it is innovation".

What does that leave?

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[macs4all]

You know, this gets tossed around as gospel quite a lot and accepted as such. So I'm curious... name these massive innovations.

Well, considering that there really is nothing new under the sun, I'm sure anything I come up with will have existed SOMEwhere before; and since YOU are the assumed arbiter of what constitutes a MASSIVE innovation, and assuming (correctly) that there is only so much effort I'm willing to spend on this, here goes. I am also going to restrict this list to the OS X-era stuff; so we don't get into detritus like the "who invented the GUI?" and "Who stole QuickTime?" type arguments:

1. Zeroconf/Bonjour. Grew out of their original AppleTalk work. Apple also Open Sourced the basis for this (mDNSResponder). Although the original idea was not Apple's, it is their implementation that is by far the most popular. Many, many, many projects and products now use Bonjour discovery services, fundamentally changing the way network device configuration and discovery works for a WIDE variety of uses on LANs.

2. Launchd. Finally someone (Apple) fundamentally changes the *NIX boot process. Again, Apple generously gives this to the world.

3. Grand Central Dispatch. Greatly improves the way Operating Systems can divvy-up threads in Multi-core/Multi-processor systems. Once again, Apple gifts this nifty bit of technology to everyone.

4. OpenCL. Originally designed by Apple, this nifty standard makes it ever-so-much-easier for developers to use and develop frameworks that leverage GPU power for certain computational tasks. After helping form an industry group, Apple basically spun this off into its own standards body.

5. Time Machine. Yes, this is, to some extent, simply an amalgam of several existing pieces-parts; but the innovation comes in the fact that, for the very first time, an actual, useful backup system can be set up with no knowledge required of the user for either setting up, maintaining, and most importantly, RESTORING backups. And anyone who has done a FULL Time Machine Restore to an empty hard drive, and watched as the ENTIRE EVERYTHING is restored JUST the way it was, would argue that that alone constitutes a pretty significant advance over other backup/restoration solutions.

That's all I can think of in a few minutes off the top of my head. I know there are MANY more examples; but I trust these represent true innovation in the purest sense (for examples 1-4) and nearly anyone who has had any experience with the heartache that most backup systems represent would agree about the innovation in ease-of-use and user-experience for #5.

Now watch as you attempt to belittle each one of these as "Just a simple routine", or "an obvious extension of...", when each of the Wikipedia references clearly notes that Apple was the INNOVATOR that INVENTED it.

Re:Well they are both rectangular

[poofmeisterp]

Maybe if we didn't behave like children, the legal system would not treat us as such.

Interesting comment. I didn't think about it until now, but I believe it was kindergarten where I was taught not to push and shove, shouting "I was there first!"

Ah, what's the use?

Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[ozmanjusri]

Slide to unlock? Unified search bar?

I wonder, do the engineers and techs working at Apple feel ashamed all this trolling?

I know it's management and legal who make the decisions, but still...

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indistinguishable? Are you serious?
There s some similarity, they share quite some design contexts, but... indistinguishable? By all means... nah.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

Take a look at both the outer design and software of Samsung's phones before and after the iPhone and say with a straight face that Samsung didn't copy at least some elements from Apple.

Who cares? It's fine to copy elements from other devices. It's fine to make look-alike and work-alike devices of other successful devices. That's how progress is made in high tech.

And Apple itself copied most of the iPhone design elements, and much of its functionality from other companies, including key features like desktop sync, MP3 sync, app stores, launchers, and many more. If such copying weren't allowed, there would be no iPhone.

What makes Apple's behavior so wrong and destructive is that they copy liberally from others and then turn around and try to monopolize the market with bad patents.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Artefacto]

Whether their they look similar or whether Samsung copied Apple's design ideas is completely irrelevant. There's no general protection against "copying ideas".

It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft), so they've turned instead to these doubtful patents to stifle competition. Even if these trivial patents are in fact valid (and having one held invalid takes years and millions of dollars and relatively onerous standards of evidence), they're arguably an abuse of the system originally designed to protect other sorts of inventions.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I think the closest thing to a ripoff there is the power brick. And while a slim connector seems like a practical decision for a slim tablet, I'd maybe give 'em that one.

A white box with a picture of the product that's inside doesn't seem like a knock-off idea to me.

Putting the actual product inside that box doesn't seem like a knock-off idea. That's what you're supposed to do.

A black, rectangular shape for a tablet doesn't seem like a knock-off idea. In fact, I doubt Apple was first to do that.

And some background imagery some designer copy/pasta'd for a booth for some convention doesn't have anything to do with the tablet.

All that aside, that's for the Tab, not the nexus. Though my s2 has that same apple-style dc adapter.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[gl4ss]

if you take it like that, then samsung(and some others) copied design elements from apple before apple published them..

it's fucking ridiculous.

anyways the linked article sucks, as it doesn't provide information on which patents were infringing on the nexus.

USA is well on it's way to being a technology can't-have nation.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[IamTheRealMike]

But that doesn't explain why their UI, external design, and OS suddenly became indistinguishable.

Have you actually used a Galaxy Nexus? I have one in my pocket right now. It looks nothing like an iPhone. The physical design and the way the OS looks and feels are entirely different. Not only is the design different, the hardware is superior in many ways. My friends routinely get me to take photos at parties because in low lighting conditions the GN camera seems to do a better job than the iPhone.

This is the most stupid decision yet. The GN has a very distinct design to the iPhone.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[scsirob]

Gosh. Wow. Years ago all there was were tiny little screens and no-one could economically produce larger ones with sensible resolution and decent touch functionality. Now there are dozens of manufacturers capable of producing a 4" - 5" LCD with good touch functionality. Some of the technology making that possible will be covered by patents, and perhaps rightfully so.

Now give this 4" touch LCD to ten designers and ask them to design a phone around that screen. Do you really think they will all be very different? Sure, some will have a keyboard, some will have one or two buttons, and some will have none. How is that innovation?

If your view would be accepted then the first to come out with a 4-wheeled car owns the design and everyone else has to pick a different number of wheels, or a totally different wheel configuration (two on the side, one front, one back perhaps?). And we would all still be having bulky big TV's and monitors, because Sony or B&O or Philips happened to be the first to come out with a flat screen and they would own the design.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[MrDoh!]

JooJoo Tablet came out before the iPad was even announced I believe. I keep hearing 'well, there wasn't anything like the iPad before the iPad came out' but there were devices that worked like it (though cheap and bad Chinese Android tablets), and tablets that /looked/ like the iPad (JooJoo tablet).

Samsung had similar designs in other places, I don't think it's a stretch of imagination to use those same designs in your own products, that someone else just happens to have also used. Though even then, hold a Samsung Android Tablet and an Apple tablet, and the difference is obvious.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody stands on the shoulders of giants, even Apple.

Nokia video 2006 (slide to unlock, gestures)

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Here-is-how-Nokia-imagined-touchscreen-phones-in-2006_id28668/

Samsung F700 (Korean design patent, December 2006)

http://gizmodo.com/235112/apple-iphone-vs-samsung-f700-which-is-touchscreenier

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Antarius]

That's not an uncommon tactic with Korean manufacturers, however.

I once worked on some high-quality, German engineered washing machines. It was discovered that, rather than spend hundreds of thousands on R&D, LG Electronics bought one of these units, disassembled it and copied it feature-for-feature albeit with minor design modifications.

The result? A washer that boasted the same features, yet "walked" across the floor during the spin cycle.

There were no legal breaches by LG in cleanrooming like that. I guess Samsung just pushed the envelope a bit far in the aesthetics department.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[wonkey_monkey]

Have you actually used a Galaxy Nexus? I have one in my pocket right now.

So you're not just pleased to see me?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've never used it then?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Mithent]

I own an original Galaxy S, and I do think it skirted too close to the line in looking like an iPhone 3GS. The chrome trim did it. Both the Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S III look distinct from Apple devices to me, though.

But the design points that Apple have tried to push recently: devices which are flat, thin and rectangular and have a large screen? There's no sensible design for a hand-held, touchscreen-controlled device that doesn't meet those criteria. No-one would buy a bulky, square tablet/phone with a small screen and an cluttered appearance, which Apple know perfectly well and so are trying to prevent other manufacturers from competing with them at all.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[digitig]

I wonder whether the slide-to-unlock issue accounts for one of the changes in the latest update to my Galaxy Ace. It used to be slide-to-unlock. Now I make exactly the same gesture to unlock it, but instead of the screen sliding it shows a growing circle. It looks as if they're already working the way around some of the issues. Mind you, the Galaxy Ace is rectangular with rounded corners and has a button...

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mellon]

So what? That's how technology goes: good design costs, so you start with good enough, and iterate to good. It's worth noting that the OpenMoko phone, ab open source phone, also very similar to the iPhone, was under development and probably would have come out before the iPhone if they'd had more money. Trade secret protection is not a defense against independent development, and rumors don't change that.

The fact is that the market was primed for devices like the iPhone and iPad when they came out. The parts had gotten cheap enough. The iPhone is a great product, and the iPad is a great product, but neither product was a surprise, and neither product gives Apple the rights to a monopoly on that form factor.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[fredrik70]

yup, apple copied the android pull-down status bar from android for example

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[ozmanjusri]

The first time I saw an iPhone, i bet the bloke who was with me that Apple had bought Mizi Research's Prizm Linux stack. http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Korean-Linux-smartphone-stack-achieves-new-release/

I lost the bet of course.

But to anyone who was involved with mobile devices at the time, the precursors of Apple's designs were clear; they took bits from PalmOS Cobalt, Prizm, Maemo and others.

As far as the physical design of the phone goes, it's all about fashion. Before about 2006, smartphones were all silver or grey, had a curved lower "chin" where the button cluster lived and still-curved but flatter top. By late 2006 though, most phones marketed as stylish (LG Prada, Samsung Chocolate & F700 etc) were dark or black, becoming much more squared off and had minimalist button designs.

I think Apple did well, they designed an iconic phone with components like processors and capacitive screens that were just becoming available at reasonable prices. However, I have no doubt if the iPhone hadn't been released, there would still be dozens of similar looking phones on the market, because that's where fashion and technology was taking them.

Apple's been clever to ride that fashion, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to a free ride.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Cederic]

I don't give a flying fuck whether Apple is a patent troll or not.

Apple is using a broken system to prevent competition. Frankly so are Samsung, Motorola, Nokia and other portable device manufacturers.

The patent system is broken. It needs fixing. It's inhibiting innovation, constraining consumer choice and damaging the economy.

Apple are merely the poster childs for everything that's bad with it.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[IamTheRealMike]

At what point did I say my friends all had the 4S? They have "iPhones" and I don't really know or care about the actual specs. All I know is that if we're in a bar or club in the evening, their cameras tend to take washed out or under-lit photos and mine doesn't. That isn't my opinion. It's theirs.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[whisper_jeff]

I agreed with everything up until that last sentence.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[james.mcarthur]

I wonder, do the engineers and techs working at Apple feel ashamed all this trolling?

Probably not, aren't they all indoctrinated when they start working for Apple?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[tepples]

It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft)

How much does the more recent decision in Tetris v. Xio change that?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple keeps winning these cases because the judges making these decisions have iPhones.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Who cares? It's fine to copy elements from other devices. It's fine to make look-alike and work-alike devices of other successful devices. That's how progress is made in high tech.

Actually, progress is made by doing new things. Copying stuff from others as close as possible is stagnation.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[gnasher719]

It's well established that "look and feel" are not protected by copyright (see Apple vs. Microsoft)

It's not protected by copyright if you are stupid enough to give the competitor a license - which Apple apparently had done. There's also about 20 years gone since then, so the legal landscape has changed.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but it's Lucy Koh again.

The people she used to work for regularly did work for Apple. You can't expect a fair and valid judgement from this woman.

Hopefully sense will shine through in the appeals, and Apple will be forced to pay compensation.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

JooJoo Tablet came out before the iPad was even announced I believe.

Well, no, the JooJoo never came out. It was never shipped, you could not buy one. And the iPad was designed long before it came out, look at this Community Design patent from 2004 and tell me this "Handheld computer" isn't the iPad.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[drinkypoo]

The result? A washer that boasted the same features, yet "walked" across the floor during the spin cycle.

This is the history of manufacturing in Asia, writ small. The Chinese are so good at copying things they copy the flaws, you can especially see this in machine tools. They have no idea what they're doing, and just copy slavishly, or maybe make some cost-saving changes. The Germans will build new machines to make one special part, the Chinese or the Koreans or whoever copy it badly and just make the part as close as they can without new tooling and it shows. Of course, now things are different, though not necessarily better; now everything is made in Asia, so they already have the tooling, and the knockoffs are simply made of inferior materials, which mean they work just as well until you use them for a while and they wear out and fall apart. You can see THIS in the knockoff machine tools too, but in THEIR case they're copied so faithfully you can use the spare parts from the original.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

When everyone can just sit back and minimize their costs by not innovating, instead only copying others as necessary to offset competitive advantages, then nobody innovates

Look at what happened to the companies Apple copied their major technologies from: Xerox, Palm, Diamond, Psion, Nokia, AT&T, etc. They are largely history. So are many of the small apps developers that innovated in the mobile space only to get copied by Apple. Those are the people who actually spent lots of money and effort on innovation, they just didn't manage to compete against Apple's design and marketing juggernaut.

So, don't pretend that these patents and lawsuits Apple keeps winning are rewarding the innovators. The innovators have already gone out of business. What Apple's patents are rewarding is a ruthless company that "shamelessly steals" (a direct Steve Jobs quote) other people's great ideas and doesn't invest a dime in research itself. And shameless stealing is not something we want to reward.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

Progress in technology is made by copying what is successful and then improving on it. Forcing companies to start from scratch and break convention and compatibility in everything hinders progress.

And copying is exactly how the iPhone improved on what was there before: Apple largely cloned Palm's functionality and UI, reused their OS that was derived from Mach and Smalltalk, and added a smattering of Nokia and Symbian into the mix.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Monoman]

What makes Apple's behavior so wrong and destructive is that they copy liberally from others and then turn around and try to monopolize the market with bad patents.

THIS!

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Monoman]

and THIS!

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Patch86]

It's a pencil sketch of a rounded rectangle with a smaller rectangle on one surface. While that does accurately describe an iPad, you can't honestly argue that that describes ONLY the iPad...

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

It's a pencil sketch of a rounded rectangle with a smaller rectangle on one surface.

No, its not. Thanks for trying, Samsung lawyer # 13.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Antarius]

They do, regularly. But where is the incentive?

They spend hundreds of thousands in engineering a new feature, testing it and ensuring it will last long term. A company in a country that doesn't protect IP then buys the German product for, say, $1k and then copies it. Said company's R&D costs are now ~$1k.

Innovation is important, but if a product can be blatantly copied and then sold to undercut the innovator, then why invest to innovate?

It's surely just coincidental that my example and the article are concerning Korean companies, of course.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[crazycheetah]

Do you have a Galaxy Nexus? Because I definitely do, and I can definitely say that the camera is far underrated. I won't say it's as good as the 4S--I have yet to actually play with a 4S to be honest, so I don't know if it's actually comparable there from personal experience--but it beats my friends' iPhone 4s (that's plural 4), as they say themselves. I've been in the same boat as the OP you're replying to has mentioned. As I said, never with a 4S (because I don't know anyone as well that has one yet), but with 4s and 3GSs for sure.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Antarius]

Heh, I'm well aware of that. It sucks for the companies investing in the R&D, but I'm not going to complain as an end-user.

If it wasn't for reverse-engineering and clean-room techniques, I'd not be typing this on a derivative of an IBM Clone that cost mere hundreds of dollars. I'd either be using a hideously expensive IBM, or derivative of some other open design that might have come along instead.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Clueless Nick]

er...I think they sold around 92 of the JooJoos. The tablet existed for a long time on their website, and it even had the same irritating design feature as that of the iPad - a rounded bottom.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Clueless Nick]

"Historically, imitation has frequently been proposed as the central mechanism mediating the reproduction, spread, intergenerational transmission and stabilization of human cultural forms, population-specific behavioral traditions found in groups of non-human primates, or both"

-Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of human culture
http://www.ceu.hu/node/7740

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Clueless Nick]

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mellon]

Right, the most hidebound bunch of groupthinkers in the whole industry didn't anticipate it, so it couldn't have been anticipated. Incorrect. Devices like the iPhone had been made and sold before Apple announced. They weren't iPhones, but the iPhone was an obvious evolutionary step after, e.g., the Nokia 770. It's too bad Nokia didn't manage to turn that into a real product.

Apple's innovation with the iPhone was not that they created a new piece of hardware nobody could have anticipated, but that they managed to convince AT&T to allow them full control over the software on the phone. This was _revolutionary_. But not really something you can patent.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mellon]

Correct. Prior art is grounds for invalidating a patent. It sort of sounds like you think it means that whoever invented the thing first owns it, but that's not what it means. The patent system requires that the thing being owned be *disclosed*, not just invented. It's a lame system, and works really badly in the software industry, but if Apple came up with something in 1994 and never disclosed it, and then Samsung built something similar in 2004, this doesn't mean that Samsung stole Apple's work.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[s.o.terica]

Your commend was that "the hardware is superior in many ways," with that being your sole example. So you're saying that it's relevant that your Galaxy Nexus camera is superior to a five-year-old iPhone's?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Bing Tsher E]

I wouldn't say that Apple has never invested a dime in research.

They pissed away millions trying to write a next generation MacOS before giving up, acknowledging their developers weren't up to the task, and buying NeXT.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Emetophobe]

Here's a better article: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/11/2791830/apple-seeks-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Nexus

• US Patent No. 5,946,647 - this patent was filed in 1996 (issued 1999) and covers detecting data, such as a phone number, in an email or web page, creating a link to that data,
  and initiating an action like calling the phone number when the user selects the link. The data could also include addresses, dates, etc.
• US Patent No. 8,086,604 - this patent claims priority back to 2000 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers searching multiple sources of information (on device and elsewhere) through
  a single search interface, such as Siri. Apple specifically touts Siri in its injunction request, but also argues that a unified text search is covered by the patent as well.
• US Patent No. 8,046,721 - this patent claims priority back to 2005 (issued Oct. 2011) and covers Apple's signature slide-to-unlock feature. While Apple already has patent coverage
  on an image unlock feature, this newest patent is obviously intended to be a bit broader — likely addressing potential workarounds implemented by Google and OEMs over the last couple of years.
• US Patent No. 8,074,172 - this patent was filed in 2007 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers providing word suggestions while the user types on a touchscreen keyboard, where the
  suggestions can be accepted or rejected by the user.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[4phun]

Take a look at both the outer design and software of Samsung's phones before and after the iPhone and say with a straight face that Samsung didn't copy at least some elements from Apple.

What makes Apple's behavior so wrong and destructive is that they copy liberally from others and then turn around and try to monopolize the market with bad patents.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten all of Slashdot of what bad patents have been issued to Apple that are being used to monopolize the market?

Prove to all of us how Apple has acquired a patent that has resulted in a monopoly they did not deserve for their American innovation?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

I wouldn't call developing the next generation MacOS "research".

Apple's ATG might be argued to have been Apple's "research lab". But they mostly ended up doing software development and software engineering tasks and were shut down and merged into Apple's product development efforts in 1997.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mjtaylor24601]

If there is no incentive to innovate, then it's stupid to innovate, because innovation involves risk and investment. When everyone can just sit back and minimize their costs by not innovating, instead only copying others as necessary to offset competitive advantages, then nobody innovates.

But there's got to be a trade off at some point doesn't there? If I come up with one really innovative product, and can then legally block every single other company out there from producing something even remotely similar to my product, what's my incentive to keep innovating? I can just sit back and watch the money roll in because nobody is allowed to compete with me. And since my competitors aren't allowed to compete they don't innovate either! No one innovates and the entire market stagnates.

Patents are supposed to be about promoting innovation. Sure, allowing everyone to just shamelessly rip off every aspect of a competitors product will stifle innovation. But legally enforcing a one-vendor mono-culture across an entire product area also stifles innovation. There's got to be a balance. Now I'm not sure where exactly to draw that line, but I'm pretty sure Apple's crossed it.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

RTFA

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Hognoxious]

covers detecting data, such as a phone number, in an email or web page, creating a link to that data,
and initiating an action like calling the phone number when the user selects the link

They've patented sed?

covers searching multiple sources of information (on device and elsewhere) through
a single search interface

I may be wrong, but wasn't there a meta-search-engine around years ago that did that? While the technical details of how to do it might be fiddly, I'd still it fails the obviousness test.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

"Historically, imitation has frequently been proposed as the central mechanism mediating the reproduction, spread, intergenerational transmission and stabilization of human cultural forms, population-specific behavioral traditions found in groups of non-human primates, or both"

-Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of human culture http://www.ceu.hu/node/7740

You'll note that nowhere in that text you will find "progress" or a synonym. Instead it basically says "Monkey see, monkey do."

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

Yes this is exactly how innovation and progress is made. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2011/09/samsung-copying-cjr.jpg

You can just feel Samsung push the limits of progress.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[2ms]

What exactly are you saying is the way to promote innovation and discourage stealing? You seem to be in favor of innovators being protected, but you side with Samsung over Apple?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[russotto]

US Patent No. 8,086,604 - this patent claims priority back to 2000 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers searching multiple sources of information (on device and elsewhere) through
a single search interface, such as Siri. Apple specifically touts Siri in its injunction request, but also argues that a unified text search is covered by the patent as well.

They never heard of Dogpile? Well, I guess the court and the patent office didn't.

US Patent No. 8,074,172 - this patent was filed in 2007 (issued Dec. 2011) and covers providing word suggestions while the user types on a touchscreen keyboard, where the suggestions can be accepted or rejected by the user.

Because of course a touchscreen keyboard is SO much different than any other keyboard.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[fustakrakich]

How many iPad look-alike, work-alike were there before the iPad?...

Well.. there was the Newton... oh, wait

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[shutdown -p now]

The bigger problem with me is that Apple is using the system to block competition outright. The established rules of the game in the IT field were that, when you had some patent, you collected some "reasonable" money for it, and that's that. That's how all the patent pools worked, and that's how all the big players worked - Samsung, Motorola, Nokia etc.

With this scheme, competitors were at a disadvantage relative to you because their devices cost a bit more because of the patent fees, but they could either bring the cost down by making something else cheaper, or add features to get a better bang for the buck. Either way, I as a consumer can still go and pick whatever device I want, weighing their advantages and disadvantages against each other.

Apple, now, doesn't ask for money. In all cases to date, they go straight to block the sales of competing products. In other words, they don't want me to have any choice other than their products, regardless of their relative merits. To which I can only wholeheartedly say, "fuck you, Apple".

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mjtaylor24601]

They spend hundreds of thousands in engineering a new feature, testing it and ensuring it will last long term. A company in a country that doesn't protect IP then buys the German product for, say, $1k and then copies it. Said company's R&D costs are now ~$1k.

So there are zero costs associated with performing the reverse engineering? There's no opportunity cost to being a late entrant to the market place competing against an established incumbent?

Innovation is important, but if a product can be blatantly copied and then sold to undercut the innovator, then why invest to innovate?

Innovation is important, but if you can use strong arm legal tactics to prevent anyone from making a product that's even remotely similar to yours, then why invest to innovate?

I think there has to be a balance here. No protection of innovative ideas probably stifles innovation. But too much protection of (questionably) innovative ideas does to.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mjtaylor24601]

Yes, shamelessly copying Apple's innovative designs like a white box with a picture of the product on the front.

Man, I bet Apple's engineers must have put in a lot of late nights coming up with that one!

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

So you're deciding to stick with your stupid side of the argument and pick the least offensive thing in the picture to use as a way to dismiss the fact it's blatant copying

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[edmicman]

But...but....there's *icons*! On a *mobile computing device*! And you "click" those icons with your *finger*! They might as well be one and the same!

--signed another extremely happy Galaxy Nexus owner

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mjtaylor24601]

So you're deciding to stick with your stupid side of the argument and pick the least offensive thing in the picture to use as a way to dismiss the fact it's blatant copying

No I was just being glib. But if you want me to give a line by line account I'll give it a shot

There are a total of 11 pictures in that link.

Picture 1 is a booth at a convention. The contention is that the icons in the background are Apples. Assuming that's true (I have no idea) and assuming that someone from Samsung put them there (it's hard to tell from that picture, but it looks like the icons are on wall behind Samsung's booth) I'll concede that it's a bit of a dick move, but I fail to see how it's particularly big deal. Should they have done it? No. Is it going to cause confusion in the market place, or harm to Apple's brand? No.

Images 2-4 show a side by side comparison of an Apple and Samsung USB-AC adapter plug. Is it a shameless copy of Apple's USB plug? Sure. But you know what, lots of consumer products look really similar to each other. Walk into any electronics store and look at the flat screen TVs. If you covered up the logos would you be able to tell one from the other? I sure wouldn't. Does that mean only one brand of TV should be allowed to be sold? Of course not. Because everyone realizes that so long as there is no patent violation and there is no (or at least limited) potential for consumer confusion, then stealing basic ideas from a competitor is not a problem. I hardly think there's anything sufficiently revolutionary going on in the design of a square USB adapter to warrant a patent. And the promenant "Samsung" logo makes it pretty hard to argue consumer confusion.

Images 5-8 show...wait for it...two products that come in a white box with a picture of the product on the front. Again nothing innovative here, and promenant Samsung / iPad labels on the box make it pretty unlikely that there will be significant consumer confusion.

Images 9-10 are two adapter cables. Now first of all, I'm not sure what this is an adapter for. I'm pretty sure the Galaxy S2, Galaxy S3, Nexus S, and Galaxy Nexus all use standard micro USB cables. But, regardless, it strikes me as the same argument as the USB-AC power adapter. Who cares? All USB cables look the same to. There's nothing sufficiently innovative or distinctive here for this to concern anyone.

Image 11 shows two speech recording apps that use a microphone as a background image. Again, this doesn't seem like anything that's pushing the envelope of creativity.

Bottom line, in business your competitors are going to do their best to steal your good ideas. I don't know why this comes as a surprise to Apple, or why they think Apple products should be entitled to some kind of protection that isn't afforded to TVs, cars or toasters.

Your move. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

I don't know how we can promote innovation better in general, but I am sure that we can't promote it by rewarding Apple with patents, a company that has extensively copied from others and has nearly bankrupted many of the companies it "stole" from.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

Nothing on that page represents "innovation". In fact, most of the Apple designs that you allege Samsung copied are designs Apple themselves ripped off from others, including the dock connector design, the USB power adapters, and the use of a big microphone.

All those trivial design features pale in comparison to the real and fundamental technical innovations Apple copied from Xerox, Palm, Diamond, Psion, Nokia, AT&T, and many others. Apple did real damage to those companies and their ability to innovate by blatantly copying them without compensation. And even that would be OK if Apple didn't turn around and now tried to keep others from copying and improving on them with trivial patents.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

No one said Apple invented USB connectors, docks, etc. But just like Ford and Chevy both make cars if Chevy starts making cars identical to Ford's cars then Ford would kick up a fuss. The only reason such a thing doesn't happen is because patent and trademark issues are taken care of before launching unlike computers where they pretty much do what they want and hope for the best.

And I suspect you'll find most of the crap people such as yourself spew about what Apple stole isn't exactly true. For example, Apple paid Xerox in exchange for them sharing. Xerox has no one to blame but bad management. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell

Just like their design patents don't patent rounded corners or rectangles but the truth doesn't always suit Android fanboys.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

It's the adapter for the Tab 10.1 and I would say all those things on their own would be fine but if you just happen to do everything the same way a competitor does then it certainly looks like you're trying to cause consumer confusion and it's not innovation. It's the exact opposite so it's not Apple is some how damaging the market by defending their design patents.

Whether you like it or not you can patent a design. Should be able to? Probably not but then again most software patents shouldn't exist either. They do exist and they're certainly within their right to defend it. Unlike most android fanboy fud they didn't patent rectangles or rounded corners. Otherwise they could after virtually every single tablet there is. They patented their specific design of the ipad and yes Samsung is doing their best to make the Tab 10.1 look just like it.

Just like on the box they don't even show the home screen. The iphone shows its home screen but Samsung shows their application screen so it implies when you turn it on it'll look similar to an ipad.

Defending your patents against one unit is hardly a story in comparison to Motorola holding back FRAND patents against numerous companies which, imo, deserves more attention than being a little note at the bottom.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[mjtaylor24601]

if you just happen to do everything the same way a competitor does then it certainly looks like you're trying to cause consumer confusion

Is there any evidence that consumer confusion is actually happening? I haven't seen any. But then I'm hardly a market analyst so feel free to correct me.

and it's not innovation. It's the exact opposite

I think it's a bit disingenuous to focus on every minor detail where Samsung copies Apple, ignore every minor detail where they don't and then claim, well all Samsung is doing is slavishly copying Apple. I look at an iPhone and I look at a Galaxy Nexus and I have no trouble telling the difference between them, and they don't seem any more similar to me than a Mac OSX desktop and a Windows desktop. But all that aside, not being innovative is not the same thing as a crime.

so it's not Apple is some how damaging the market by defending their design patents.

No they're damaging the market by attempting to use strong arm legal tactics to stifle competition and limit consumer choice.

Whether you like it or not you can patent a design. Should be able to? Probably not

Oh, so you're argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing, but since the law allows it, one can't blame them for looking out for #1? Sorry, that's not the impression I got from your previous comments.

but then again most software patents shouldn't exist either.

Well I won't argue with that.

They do exist and they're certainly within their right to defend it

And I think I'm within my rights to call them petty dicks for doing it. Free speech and all that...

Unlike most android fanboy fud they didn't patent rectangles or rounded corners. Otherwise they could after virtually every single tablet there is. They patented their specific design of the ipad

But what is it exactly that they have patented? Because honestly I'm having trouble figuring that out. All I keep hearing is a few very general things like "slide to unlock" or "look and feel of the packaging" along with the sort of hand-wavy argument that, "well yes, any of these individually wouldn't be a problem but taken all together it infringes on the on Apple's overall product presentation". But the thing is can't (or at least you shouldn't be able to) patent something as nebulous as the "overall" presentation. Patents are supposed to cover very specific concrete things. So far I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that Apple couldn't sue every tablet manufacturer if they so chose.

To put it another way, what's the list of specific concrete changes that Samsung could make so that they wouldn't be accused of violating Apple's patents?

Defending your patents against one unit is hardly a story in comparison to Motorola holding back FRAND patents against numerous companies which, imo, deserves more attention than being a little note at the bottom.

Well I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of what Motorola has or hasn't been holding back on, but if they agreed to a particular license arrangement as part of having one of their patent adopted as part of a standard, and they're not honoring that agreement, then they deserve to get their buts handed to them. However I will say that it seems kind of backwards to me that if you do a bunch of R&D, come up with something sufficiently ingenious that it's use is pretty much essential to a functioning technology, and you're kind enough to license that technology to everyone, then you get a pittance. But invent "slide to unlock" and you get to block a competitors entire product line! Remind me, how does this foster innovation again?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[cheesybagel]

Which trademark issues? Samsung isn't using Apple's logo or brands. Patents can be granted on such flimsy grounds that you need to evaluate them on a case by case basis to see if they even make sense under the premises they are granted on.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[cheesybagel]

I don't care much. The US can keep paying their Apple tax while us in the rest of the developed world use our more sophisticated and cheaper Android devices.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[cheesybagel]

Yeah no kidding. Developing the GSM stack is worthless but rounded corners in a case is worth barring your competitor. I'm looking at my rounded corner non-Apple LCD screen right now. Is it that surprising that cellphones or tablets have a similar format to the display device?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[datavirtue]

Yeah, and they're main inspiration for building the damn things had to RIM's Blackberry. That thing always felt cheap and archaic to me, never really wanted one. In fact, when the iPhone came out I didn't even pay attention. Like a dog walking past a concrete block. When Android hit I got really excited. Not because of Google, or Linux, but because everyone was going to have control over their fucking phones finally (as opposed to being stuck with the carrier's pre-installed garbage). I was taken aback that Verizon was selling them because it let the consumer install their own apps. Android smart-phones are what has really made this genre popular. In my mind it is indistinguishable which came first, the iPhone or the Android clones, and it doesn't matter anymore.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

The only reason such a thing doesn't happen is because patent and trademark issues are taken care of before launching unlike computers where they pretty much do what they want and hope for the best.

You should read up on the history of the automobile.

And I suspect you'll find most of the crap people such as yourself spew about what Apple stole isn't exactly true. For example, Apple paid Xerox in exchange for them sharing.

You're missing the point. Whether Apple paid something or not, the fact is that Apple managed to kill research at most of the companies it copied from, without actually innovating themselves.

Just like their design patents don't patent rounded corners or rectangles but the truth doesn't always suit Android fanboys.

Apple switches their claims against competitors between trademarks, patents, and design patents. And what Apple thinks they own, they have shown in their legal briefs: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/2/2596527/apple-samsung-design-patent-iphone-ipad-work-around

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Patch86]

You're right, by golly, I'm not being fair.

It also has a small sketched circle on one edge that could easily be a 3.5mm jack (or a power connector, or a button of some sort, or an LED light), and a jagged rectangle on another edge that is quite clearly a proprietary Apple brand iDock connector (unless it's USB; or HDMI; or a Kensington lock slot; or a latch for the removable battery cover).

Interestingly (sarcasm mode off now), the sketch lacks the "single button on the front" which formed part of one of Apple's lawsuits, has a far flatter back panel than the attractively curved iPad, and the two lone connectors drawn on that sketch don't match the connectors that are actually on an iPad. So it isn't even an accurate sketch of an iPad- it's just a sketch of a rounded rectangle.

Also noteworthy- the "Design Status" on the page you linked is "Invalidity procedure pending". I'm not familiar with how that system works- but that doesn't sound like the design is cut-and-dried accepted.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[AK Marc]

So Ford should sue Chevy over the Cavalier having turn signals and wiper controls in a similar location as the Escort? They also have similar seatbelts, horn, and throttle/brake function.

Sometimes there's copying. Other times, 100 ergonomic experts will come to the same conclusion independently.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Kalriath]

Um, this entire article is about Apple acquiring patents undeservably on obvious non-innovation and litigating their competition out of existence.

Oh, of course. Samsung is Korean so therefore does not deserve to compete. America, Fuck Yeah!

Imperialistic twat.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Kalriath]

It all makes sense now! The Apple HQ is a Reaper!

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Interestingly (sarcasm mode off now), the sketch lacks the "single button on the front" which formed part of one of Apple's lawsuits, has a far flatter back panel than the attractively curved iPad, and the two lone connectors drawn on that sketch don't match the connectors that are actually on an iPad. So it isn't even an accurate sketch of an iPad- it's just a sketch of a rounded rectangle.

Also noteworthy- the "Design Status" on the page you linked is "Invalidity procedure pending". I'm not familiar with how that system works- but that doesn't sound like the design is cut-and-dried accepted.

That's why there are newer design patents (and more to the point in the US) for the newer iPads. Doesn't change the fact tat the basic iPad design predates all the "prior art" given.

And no, its a number of drawings depicting the a design of a 3D object, not one of a "rounded rectangle".

And just because somebody (Samsung?) tries to invalidate it doesn't mean it will be. It means somebody is desperate - and it's not Apple.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Patch86]

That's why there are newer design patents (and more to the point in the US) for the newer iPads. Doesn't change the fact tat the basic iPad design predates all the "prior art" given.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

That was about 20 seconds of Googling (I'm presuming that it's a fairly "well debated" topic on the internet these days).

Bearing in mind we're only talking about the physical hardware design if we're talking about your linked sketches- although seeing it in action it seems surprisingly up-to-date.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

That's why there are newer design patents (and more to the point in the US) for the newer iPads. Doesn't change the fact tat the basic iPad design predates all the "prior art" given.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381528/Knight-Ridder-tablet-looks-just-like-iPad-17-YEARS-OLD.html

That was about 20 seconds of Googling (I'm presuming that it's a fairly "well debated" topic on the internet these days).

Bearing in mind we're only talking about the physical hardware design if we're talking about your linked sketches- although seeing it in action it seems surprisingly up-to-date.

And if you had wasted 10 seconds of actually looking at the pictures, you would have seen that the surface is not flush. And that's not even going into that thing being nothing but a prop.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

To be fair not trademarks in the strictest sense but a design patent is effectively a trademark for the look of the product rather than a logo.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[thetoadwarrior]

You can say they stole something when they paid for it and claiming they haven't innovated either is rather silly. You're clearly biased and no matter what the truth is you're always going to see them as being the bad guy. That's ok though. People are usually happier when they live in a fantasy world.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

You can say they stole something when they paid for it and claiming they haven't innovated either is rather silly.

I didn't use the word "stole", you did.

You're clearly biased and no matter what the truth is you're always going to see them as being the bad guy. That's ok though. People are usually happier when they live in a fantasy world.

Of course I'm biased against Apple, and for good reason: the company has been abusing the courts and the patent system for 25 years, and it hasn't created any significant technological innovation. Go look up the look and feel lawsuit: Apple has been pulling this sh*t for a long time.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Internal Modem]

This is not a "look and feel" case or decision. What are you going on about?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[griffitj]

Right on!

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Progress in technology is made by copying what is successful and then improving on it. Forcing companies to start from scratch and break convention and compatibility in everything hinders progress.

"Start from scratch" is a strawman, and you haven't shown where Samsung has improved anything.

And no, putting a "Samsung" label on an Apple design and thus making it less "shiny" and buy-able by all Apple haters doesn't count.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[squiggleslash]

The thing is though that only GEM copied the Apple UI (and Apple successfully used legal action to change it so the second version was a very poor clone.)

Microsoft Windows had virtually nothing on common with Mac OS until well after it was popular, with Windows 95 being the first version of Windows that used a "Finder" like UI, and with the user interface still having significant differences. When 95 came out, Apple was already on life support. Even worse, it wasn't even doing well in 1990, when DOS ruled supreme. It failed not because anyone copied it, but because users overwhelmingly rejected Apple's approach to the GUI, preferring no GUI at all over a Macintosh.

Android? It's only a clone when it comes to threatening lawsuits. It doesn't work the same way. It doesn't even have the same front end (iOS's front end is a program launcher, Android's is a widget + status + custom launcher thing.) Arguably Apple has copied more - much more - from Android than Google has copied from iOS. And the iPhone wasn't even the first icon-driven touch-based capacitive screen phone (the LG Prada beat it.)

Apple enthusiasts will actually tell you this. They'll tell you that Android sucks, and then give a list of reasons (most of which seem pretty damned peculiar to the rest of us, but I guess it's a personal thing.)

The other part of this which I find amusing is that Apple started the war with Google themselves. Google was already developing a phone when Apple entered the market, but it's unlikely Google would have gone full speed ahead and concentrated on beating the iPhone rather than beating the Blackberry were it not for a single decision that Apple made from the beginning: they locked down the iPhone. It's five years later, and you still need Apple's permission to install an app on your own device. And Google themselves, even before the competition started, have had problems getting entirely legitimate apps approved.

(This is a reason too why I suspect the recent Facebook + Apple relationship is a very, very, temporary one. Facebook needs the market to be open just as Google did. Facebook doesn't benefit from Apple winning anything, they're just uncomfortable with Apple losing to Google, when Google is their biggest competitor.)

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

"Start from scratch" is a strawman, and you haven't shown where Samsung has improved anything.

The Galaxy software that Samsung is being sued over comes from Google. The features Apple is suing over are things Apple didn't even invent (universal search, sliding, recognition of phone numbers, etc.). In addition, Apple copied many features from Android, including such biggies as Android's notifications, voice recognition, and multitasking. And there is tons of software available for Android that Apple won't even permit on iPhone, such as different launchers, scripting, syncing, and input methods. As for the hardware, the fact that a phone like the Samsung S2 cost half as much as an iPhone 4S alone is a big improvement. So are better drop resistance, OLED, interchangeable batteries, MHL, USB host mode, and tons of other features.

So, the real question is: what has Apple actually "improved"?

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Well, why donÄt you as a Samsung lawyer get the patents invalidated? But as all good Samsung lawyers you don't even understand what they are about.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

Patent invalidation takes years and is hence pointless.

A better strategy is to demand steep damages when Apple's lawsuits don't work out, and to countersue with other patents.

With Jobs's gone, long term, the problem is going to go away anyway: Apple has neither the technology nor the leadership to continue to succeed.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Patent invalidation takes years and is hence pointless.

A better strategy is to demand steep damages when Apple's lawsuits don't work out, and to countersue with other patents.

Sure, and even steeper damages when they do work out. That's the only way Samsung will learn despite losing over and over.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[khipu]

So far, Apple has been losing...

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[Grudge2012]

Suuuuure.

Re:Patent trolling is the new iWhite...

[poofmeisterp]

Slide to unlock? Unified search bar?

I wonder, do the engineers and techs working at Apple feel ashamed all this trolling?

I know it's management and legal who make the decisions, but still...

<snark>
Hey now... Slide to unlock has saved me so much time in my day that the device has paid for itself in less than a week. Patents are key to American health. What were we talking about?
</snark>

The rest of the world does not care

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - pity for those in the US, they wont get the new stuff now...

Fortunately the rest of the world can enjoy all those things that are forbidden in the US. Seems the US is no longer the place to get your new stuff.
Now I am the last one to say anything about the quality or something, but at least the rest of the rest of the world has a free choice.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[hawkinspeter]

I thought the new phones always came out in Asia first, then Europe, then America.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[brezel]

it's really sad to see what capitalism is doing to a country that had such high goals when i was first created. now it seems mostly you will get incarcerated, sued, beaten up or criminalized for things that are perfectly normal in the rest of the free world.

i think it's really cynical of american polititians to even use the word "freedom" in their campaigns since it has basically lost all meaning due to the entanglement of business, military and politics.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[bhcompy]

Err, patents aren't "capitalism".

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[PopeRatzo]

Well - pity for those in the US, they wont get the new stuff now...

Sure we will.

As we well know, you can find a judge somewhere to say something. That's different than being anything like permanent.

The rule of law is how shall we say, mutable when big money is involved.

We'll see whose ox gets gored. And not (for Apple users) in a good way.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[mellon]

Patents are reverse socialism. The government takes something of value from the people, and grants it to an individual. They are very much capitalism, because every kind of capital you can own has this same property: it exists because the government says it exist, and your ownership of it exists because the government says it does. People talk about capitalism as if it were the natural state of things, but that's no more true than that socialism is: both are decisions that the group, in the form of the government, makes about how to allocate assets.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Maybe it's clearer to say that capitalism != free markets, wouldn't you agree?

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[khipu]

There have been plenty of lawsuits and injunctions based on Apple patent and design claims in Europe as well, and as a consequence, there are many Samsung devices you can't get in Europe either.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[khipu]

If that's what you believe, you really are totally out of touch with what's going on in the world.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[demonlapin]

every kind of capital you can own has this same property: it exists because the government says it exist, and your ownership of it exists because the government says it does.

This is not necessarily true; you can conceal your intellectual property, and ownership of physical assets is certainly not purely dependent on government sanction - e.g. the illicit drug industry, which cannot rely on government mechanisms to secure any transaction but which nonetheless has significant physical possessions. It's just a lot easier to defend your stuff if government hires a bunch of goons to beat up thieves rather than you having to do it yourself.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[Anne Thwacks]

No. The broken American patent system is a logical consequence of selling your politicians to the highest bidder.

The reason why you constitutionally have the right to arm bears (bare arms?) is so that you can assassinate the scum bags. Of course, the consequence of assassinations is that you get life with hard labour, but given the current level of unemployment, you might want to consider that a bonus!

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[haploc]

And that's why they are aggressively pushing both ACTA, the TPP and other future treaties, to get other countries in line with this crap.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[gr0v3]

its really sad to see how the government is ruining capitalism by granting broad patents to companies that quell their competition with litigation.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[fnj]

Excellent insight. Mods, plus-five this port!

Have you ever looked at the concept of distributism?

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[nurb432]

Ever hear of the WTO? Enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[4phun]

Well - pity for those in the US, they wont get the new stuff now...

Fortunately the rest of the world can enjoy all those things that are forbidden in the US. Seems the US is no longer the place to get your new stuff.
Now I am the last one to say anything about the quality or something, but at least the rest of the rest of the world has a free choice.

The same issues Google/Samsung/Motorola ran afoul off in the USA are also being brought up before governments all over the world.

Google/Motorola is preparing for a major hit where it hurts.

Could you loose your ability to speak if you have been screaming in pain and anger at adverse developments rapidly revealing themselves as you prepare to celebrate your accomplishments?

The blow to Google Android Motorola was prompted by six key congressmen who visited the FTC on Thursday and told them FRAND ABUSE as practiced by Google in protecting Android would not be tolerated as it was anti competitive. In effect they told the FTC to step up their game as they were now watching what transpires.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/06/29/civil.investigative.demands.issued.to.google.apple.microsoft/

Overseas the EU is investigating the same FRAND ABUSE issues and is preparing to smack down Google/Motorola for the same reasons. The FTC just provided documents to the EU to help the EU build their case.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/02/19/apple-files-frand-abuse-complaint/

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[4phun]

it's really sad to see what capitalism is doing to a country that had such high goals when i was first created. now it seems mostly you will get incarcerated, sued, beaten up or criminalized for things that are perfectly normal in the rest of the free world.

i think it's really cynical of american polititians to even use the word "freedom" in their campaigns since it has basically lost all meaning due to the entanglement of business, military and politics.

Woud it not be more accurate to say the entanglement of business, political, and religion is what defies the true meaning of freedom?

The military is just an expression of the political teeth that can bite the government's enemies.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[mellon]

In point of fact, drug dealers don't own what they have—the government is free to take it if they can, and so are you (but don't get caught!).

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[mellon]

Yes, if you restrict property ownership to what you can personally defend, then property does not require government intervention. Otherwise it does. Anarcho-syndicalists often pretend that a corporate property registry is different, because it's not governmental, but it amounts to the same thing. The only difference is that you pay the syndicate to defend your rights, whether people collectively agree you have them or not, which can get really ugly (not that government enforcement of property rights can't, of course).

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[mellon]

Oh, btw, yes, you can conceal your "intellectual property," but then it's not property. It's a trade secret. If someone else figures it out independently, or it is released through other means, you no longer "own" it. This is what trade secrets are, and there is a whole body of law that deals with them.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[bhcompy]

It's probably clearest to say that capitalism is meant to be market darwinism, and whether or not you call it "free" is up to you, since "freedom" is relative.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[bhcompy]

They exist outside of the market. Any market that includes non-governmental enterprise may conceivably have a patent system regardless of what economic system that entity uses. It's a control on the economic system, but not part of it.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[demonlapin]

So long as I don't get caught, I'm already free to steal from you or anyone else. Ask anyone who has had a smartphone or laptop stolen how helpful the police are even when you know the culprit and where the device is.

Also, you're confusing a legal concept with its real world counterpart. Ownership can be defined in many ways. Exclusive possession and use probably covers what most people think of as ownership, even if what the courts enforce is somewhat different.

Re:The rest of the world does not care

[couchslug]

The American people are getting the country most of them deserve.

They not only allow it, they endorse it. Think about that for a bit.

  It's IMO time for the rest of the world to tell the US (which is nothing more than a corporate money and globalist war machine) to fuck off.

Deny the US international support for its follies and it can't do much unilaterally.

So, before you start developing a new product ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . you need to engage your legal department, if you are big enough to have one, to verify that the product won't get bogged down in long, drawn-out, legal battles.

It used to be that the work in the lab was most important. Now work in the legal department is more important than R&D.

Sad.

Sensationalist submission is sensationalist.

[gallondr00nk]

"Is this the beginning of the end for Android?"

Don't be so fucking stupid.

Re:Sensationalist submission is sensationalist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Question mark disclaims any mental responsibility for what follows. For example:

Is this a step towards nucular holocaust?

Re:Sensationalist submission is sensationalist.

[Patch86]

nucular

Nuclear.

Sorry, I know; pedantry is the worst form of dickishness. But that one made me hurt somewhere deep inside.

Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[wild_quinine]

From TFS:

"Is this the beginning of the end for Android?"

No, it's the beginning of the end for Apple.

Re:Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Those who can't innovate, litigate. Seems like that would be Apple.

Re:Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[virtigex]

No, Oracle's Java lawsuit was the beginning of the end for Android, remember. Since then, Android has been limping along mortally wounded. I'm sure this is crushing coup de grâce.

Re:Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[jareth-0205]

From TFS:

"Is this the beginning of the end for Android?"

No, it's the beginning of the end for Apple.

And patents in their current form... Apple should be careful where they have their successes, if the general population start becoming aware of the silly system that is in place (and getting a very high-profile popular phone banned is a pretty good way) then reform is going to gain traction.

Re:Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[edmicman]

Didn't Oracle lose that just recently?

Support your local underdogs

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Stuff like this makes me want to buy a Samsung device right now, simply out of spite for these agressive, bullshit patent practices that limit competition and my choices as a consumer.
Also, I have this built-in genetic disposition of always wanting to support the underdog.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[whisper_jeff]

Stuff like this makes me want to buy a Samsung device right now, simply out of spite for these agressive, bullshit patent practices that limit competition and my choices as a consumer.

Why? You want to support a company that abuses their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition.

Seriously, it boggles my mind that people are so utterly blinded by their hatred of Apple that they fail to recognize that Samsung (and Motorola) are utterly abusing their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition in the mobile market in the absolute worst possible way imaginable.

But, hey, you feel free to paint Apple as the villain here and rally support for the true villains. That koolaid must taste real good.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Samsung/Motorola grasping at straws to defend themselves against the initial patent aggressors Apple/MSFT make them the "true villians"?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Issarlk]

Google is local. The success of Android will encourage the project they have to manufacture their own devices in America based facilities.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[fightinfilipino]

speak for yourself.

the injunction against the Galaxy is precisely that: an injunction. the underlying patent case has not yet been decided before the court. approving the injunction means that the suing party has, at first glance, met their evidentiary burden to move forward with the case. but the case itself still must be decided, and such cases can take up to a year or more to work themselves out. meanwhile, Apple can enjoy the "fruits" of reduced competition. don't kid yourself: that doesn't benefit anyone but Apple.

and with how specious software patents can be, we should ALL be wary of lawsuits whose primary effect is to stifle competitors not in the market, but out of it. doesn't matter if it's Apple, Samsung, Google, or any other party; this sort of lawsuit stinks any way you look at it.

this is not a win for Apple. this is not a win for Samsung/Google. worst of all, though, this is not a win for the consumer.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Issarlk]

So a guy illegally pulling out a gun to defend against an agressor who just stabbed him with a kniffe is a vilain?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[realityimpaired]

I thought I made that clear - they're abusing FRAND patents. In my humble opinion, any company that abuses FRAND patents is the worst sort of offender, truly intent on stifling competition within an industry and guilty of the worst sort of anti-competitive behaviour deserving of swift and severe punishment from whatever trade organization can take action against them. If a company agrees to include their patented technology in an industry standard under FRAND terms and then renegs on those FRAND obligations, they are doing more harm to competition within an industry any any company possibly could. That, imho, makes them the true villains.

There's nothing in FRAND that says they have to give it away, only that they have to be reasonable with their licensing terms. The FRAND terms that *most* of the industry seems to have agreed on is "you don't sue us, we don't sue you". Apple is the one that doesn't like those terms, even though they were offered them.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I'm not an Apple hater. All I know is that if I wanted to by a Samsung in the U.S. right now, I couldn't, thanks to Apple. And Apple did the same thing in Germany some time ago. Truly, I don't know alot about the legal background on these patent wars. But it seems to me that Apple, amongst other companies, is bringing these fights to a new level which wasn't there before, and that that isn't a good thing for me. Did TV, car, microwave, or wearing glasses manufacturers get sued and their products barred from the market on the whim of a competitor in the past? Not that I'm aware of.

I don't have any kind of smartphone yet, and in fact I was still weighing my options. I was leaning towards an Android device because I could code my own apps for it in Java, but alot of people are telling me how Apple is better, so I was still pretty much undecided. The fact that Apple is now twisting the market in its favor doesn't make me happy.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[MrHanky]

Well, the FRAND patents are for actual technological innovations, whereas Apple's patents are only for generic fluff. Apple wants to freeload on others R&D while monopolising obvious ideas.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[whisper_jeff]

There's nothing in FRAND that says they have to give it away...

Nobody has claimed Apple wants the licenses for free. They have claimed that they want them for Fair and Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory rates. As is required by a FRAND agreement.

The FRAND terms that *most* of the industry seems to have agreed on is "you don't sue us, we don't sue you".

That's not even vaguely true. Not even a little bit. The terms that most companies use is "we would rather not spend cash so how about we work out a cross-licensing deal for some of our patents". Apple, on the other hand a) has plenty of cash to pay licensing fees and b) would rather develop a competitive edge over their competition that differentiates them. Thus, they don't want to cross license - they just want to cut a check _AS IS THEIR RIGHT_. The amount being asked by Samsung and Motorola are what they consider to be unfair and unreasonable and are inherently discriminatory since they specifically target Apple.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[mellon]

Dude, I adore Apple. I've been buying Apple products since MacOS 10.1 came out. I switched to a Google Nexus a couple of years ago after really enjoying my iPhone when Apple discontinued support for the iPhone when I was still in contract. This is just downright abusive behavior, and it continues: my iPad is also no longer supported as of iOS 6. The reason people are pissed off at Apple is that they have gotten too big for their breeches and started to abuse their customers. So the new intelligence test for Apple customers is, how much more of this are you willing to put up with?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[whisper_jeff]

You switched to an Android device because Apple stops supporting technology after _THREE_ years??? Are you joking?

Say whatever you want about Apple but they support their tech a HELL of a lot longer than Android manufacturers who often aren't utilizing the latest version of Android the day the device hits the shelves, let along a couple months later and most certainly not after _THREE YEARS_.

And before anyone points it out, I realize that's not Google's fault - it's the manufacturers - but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Oh, this is interesting. Do you have a good reference on how Samsung abuses FRAND patent obligations? Seriously, I'd like to learn more. Yes I could do a search myself, but I'd like to know where you learned of this. Do tell.

I wonder if Samsung would be more forgiving if Apple wasn't suing for injunctions against Samsung hardware.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi I'm whisper_jeff, I like to bitch about how Samsung abuse FRAND patent obligations. It is my life story, I like nothing better than repeating myself in every conversation.

Geez, you're on a mission whisper_jeff, you should change your name to whisper_samsung_abuse_FRAND_jeff.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Sulphur]

Hmm... let's see...

Ferrari... headlights..check, four wheels..check, general rectangular form..check, doors..check...
Ford... headlights..check, four wheels..check, general rectangular form..check, doors..check...

Clearly Ferrari has to be banned from the USA. This shameless copy cannot be allowed here...

If Enzo had a flat top haircut, then would he be a flathead Ferrari?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I agree with what you're saying in principle. I don't believe in FRAND because it leaves FOSS out of the picture. But one question does come to mind: is Motorola Mobility setting prices higher for Apple and Microsoft? If so, are they doing so in retaliation against litigation from Apple and Microsoft or their proxies?

The FRAND issue you raise seems more like tit-for-tat than an industry-wide abuse of FRAND. In the link you provided, Apple and Microsoft were the only other companies mentioned and, as far as I know, they are the only companies complaining about Motorola's licensing practices of essential patents.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[cmdrbuzz]

It doesn't really matter /why/ Motorola (and Samsung) attempt to abuse FRAND. They broke an agreement that they committed to and should be held to account.

Imagine if someone said that they will not sue FOSS software (and users) over their patents that (may or may not be) are included in some FOSS S/W.
Then Redhat starts selling a release containing the (potentially) infringing code and the patent owner goes back on their commitment not to sue and pulls a SCO.

Fair? I think not.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[realityimpaired]

That's not even vaguely true. Not even a little bit. The terms that most companies use is "we would rather not spend cash so how about we work out a cross-licensing deal for some of our patents". Apple, on the other hand a) has plenty of cash to pay licensing fees and b) would rather develop a competitive edge over their competition that differentiates them. Thus, they don't want to cross license - they just want to cut a check _AS IS THEIR RIGHT_. The amount being asked by Samsung and Motorola are what they consider to be unfair and unreasonable and are inherently discriminatory since they specifically target Apple.

They were still offered an option that would not have cost them anything out of pocket, and they rejected it. Samsung et. al. expecting to be paid for their work is not unreasonable, and IMO, they've gone *well* beyond what I would consider fair pricing by offering Apple an option that would have cost them nothing. Apple are the ones who rejected a fair offer.

Besides, if Samsung *really* wanted to be anti-competitive to Apple, they could simply decide that they're not going to sell LCD panels to Apple any more. There's nothing illegal about choosing not to do business with Apple, and if they did it, Apple would no longer be able to offer "Retina" displays on any of their equipment. You do realize that most of the hardware in an iPhone is manufactured by Samsung, and that it's only in the last few months that LG has been able to manufacture displays approaching the pixel density that Samsung has? Nobody else can do it yet. Samsung pulling out right about now could have a devastating effect on Apple's Back-to-school/Christmas product availability, as I'd be surprised if LG has enough capacity to meet the demand it would create yet.

BTW, there are those who would argue that something as obvious as including a search bar on the home screen of a phone shouldn't be patentable, and that if it is patentable, it should be included in FRAND as well.... That is what this injunction is over, you realize.... Apple doesn't like that other people are putting a search bar on the home screen (and it's not even required as part of the home screen, it's an app that's available), and so they are suing for a stop sell on Google's product. How is that *not* anti-competitive in your world?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[McDee]

Nobody has claimed Apple wants the licenses for free. They have claimed that they want them for Fair and Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory rates. As is required by a FRAND agreement.

Apple didn't sign up to a deal when they first started selling the iPhone. Now that they have sold so many of them any 'fair and reasonable' per-unit cost turns out to be a massive sum in aggregate and Apple is choking on it. Wouldn't have been a problem if they'd done what they should have in the first place.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[andydread]

Imagine if someone said that they will not sue FOSS software (and users) over their patents that (may or may not be) are included in some FOSS S/W. Then Redhat starts suing them for patent infringement and the patent owner goes back on their commitment not to sue and countersues Redhat only

There fixed that for you. You failed to use the correct analogy either you did so disingenuosly or out of ignorance on the matter.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[cmdrbuzz]

Your changes don't make any difference! If (in the example above) Redhat sued another company over patents (that in Redhat's / Apple's case) are NOT FRAND patents, it doesn't then mean the original company can go back on its FRAND patents and sue Redhat / Apple.

Your "fixed that for you" is a cheap shot, and wrong.

Your trolling ==> FAIL.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[ilsaloving]

CAN Samsung just pull out like that though? Arn't these sorts of things defined by contracts, saying that party A promises to produce X number of parts for party B, or for a certain time frame?

Looking at HP vs Oracle, HP is suing because they claim Oracle unilaterally pulled out of a contract with HP to produce database software for HP's itanium. If Samsung tried to pull out, I would think Apple would go "thermonuclear" on them.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[realityimpaired]

CAN Samsung just pull out like that though?

Probably not without penalties... depends on the nature of the contract. If I were the one writing it, I would draft a short-term renewable contract for each sales order, and when Apple orders a new batch, accepting the order renews the contract for that batch. If Samsung were to reject the sales order, in this sense, the contract wouldn't be broken, because there's nothing in the contract which guarantees that I have to accept your next sales order.

That being said, even if there would be penalties against Samsung for breaking the contract, the damage that it would do to Apple would be significant and possibly unrecoverable for their market position. It may be worth it anyway, if Apple keeps going for injunctions against Samsung competing on the open market.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[andydread]

My changes were in the interest of accuracy. Your analogy was skewed. As you know Moto Samsung are only suing the people that either 1. sued them first or 2. threatend to sue them. They are not suing everybody and world + dog. they are suing the people who are hell bent on "Thermonuclear" software patent war... You know the people who lauched this war by threating to sue Nokia/Moto who then replied premptively and Samsung and HTC who told them to go away.

in the case of FRAND sure the FRAND IP holder can sue. FRAND does not mean they cannot sue. If the owner of the FRAND IP is asking for compensation on similar terms as others that are paying then they sure can sue willful violators. The problem is Apple refusing to pay what the FRAND IP holders say others are paying. And in this case the wilful violator of the FRAND IP is Apple. They are wilfully violating the patent and refusing to pay what the IP holder is asking so the IP holder can sue.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[mellon]

Less than two years, not three. I got an iPhone 3G the day it was released, with a two-year contract, and it was out of support before the contract ended.

I agree with you that if we were comparing non-Google Android phones to Apple phones, I would still be out to lunch. Non-google Android phones suck—the only way to use Android and like it is on a Google device, or to root your Android device and install an open source build like Cyanogenmod. Otherwise it's like a windows preinstall—loaded up with crapware.

But that's actually why Android is a win. With iOS, once your phone is out of the support stream, that's the end of it. With Android, if the manufacturer's support sucks, you can root your phone and install an open source version (if you bought carefully in the first place, of course). With Google Nexus phones, it's really easy, but it can be done with a lot of non-Google phones too.

I think that Android's UI needs a lot of fine-tuning, and that Apple's is better. But UI isn't everything. I do not appreciate being forced onto a 2 year upgrade cycle. For me, this is a deal-breaker, because it means that the phone is useless once I'm done with it, even if I upgrade every two years. The lockdown on the iPhone prevents it from being repurposed once it's been obsoleted by Apple.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Uberbah]

I won't link to references - feel free to Google it for yourself.

That's not how this works. It's your assertion, so it's your job to back it up if you want it to be taken seriously.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Drathos]

I don't know many details about Samsung's side, but..

First, Moto's use of a FRAND patent is against MS, not Apple.
Second, the rate is the same that at least 50 other companies have agreed to in the past (according to several articles I've read about it). You can argue that the rate isn't reasonable, but you can't argue that it's discriminatory.

In both cases, however, the tech is being used unlicensed and therefore is infringing.

Frankly, I want this whole patent BS to go away on all sides, but the lawyers in charge love it.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[shutdown -p now]

Samsung wants money from Apple for its patents. So do Motorola and Nokia. Whether they want a "fair" amount or not is a complicated question and is something for the court to figure out, but they're not trying to put Apple products completely outside the market, making them unavailable. Worst case, for me, is that an iPhone becomes a little bit more expensive. I can live with that.

Apple, on the other hand, doesn't want money. They want no competitors. So they don't even ask for money, they go straight for bans. As far as I'm concerned, this takes away my choice to select a better product. That is much more evil.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[cmdrbuzz]

The FRAND licensed patents that Apple licensed by purchasing baseband chips from Qualcomm (who had already payed Motorola the patent fee) that Motorola then "terminated" Qualcomm's license but only if the person purchasing the baseband chip was Apple...

After setting that up, they then sued Apple and demanded 2.25% of the retail price of each iPhone (apparently Motorola like 2.25%, looks like it was also the amount of the patent fee in the baseband chip).

Doesn't look very "Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory" to me....

Re:Support your local underdogs

[hairyfish]

but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.

I think the main difference is that Apple's model relies on having support for your device to function properly. With Android the capability exist for device support outside the official channel. So even if Google disappears overnight your hardware can still be used, can you say the same about Apple?

Re:Support your local underdogs

[Vegemeister]

I am of the opinon that it is entirely fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory to require cross-licensing of all patents in related fields.

Re:Support your local underdogs

[lamapper]

Loved your post.

I don't have any kind of smartphone yet, and in fact I was still weighing my options. I was leaning towards an Android device because I could code my own apps for it in Java,

I want to code using standalone PHP and the new HTML5 standards that will let your apps continue to function when the device (smart embedded device) is NOT connected to the Internet. Others want to use Python or Ruby.

No root access = dumb device!

If the device is open and unlocked with Administrator (Root) access than you and I both can use it as we see fit....which is the most basic definition of whether a device is truly smart.

If new device runs less software than last device = not smart, dumb device!

I would add, as a friend of mine likes to say, that if the device is beyond the first release, than it should only run more software on it than the previous release, never less. If the new device runs fewer applications than the last device, its just not smart.

No WiFi access = Dumb device!

Finally I want VoIP WiFi access which can NOT be denied to me if I have Root / Admin Access. As WiFi is available to me in over 80% of the places where I spend my life. The only place its not, is when I am in transit between places and most state laws are forcing hands free or outright bans when in transit anyway.

Is a monthly fee required = Dumb Device! (optional is okay, required is wrong. What is it doing for me that deserves that monthly fee?)

I want to use social media, chats, blogs, tweets, facebook, etc... without the need of any additional monthly fee, Wifi access guarantees all of us these options...thus I am ever hopeful.

You are right on the money, loved your post~

The fact that Apple is now twisting the market in its favor doesn't make me happy.

Apple is far from the only company doing this. I long ago realized that if I developed apps that depended on any proprietary hardware/software platform that as soon as I became profitable enough that proprietary company would take my vertical away from me...they simply would always have more money to spend, some of that raised by me on their behalf for using their closed system. That does not seem smart.

Worst of all, when it is not possible to innovate any longer, the proprietary company will put me/you out of business via a forced update / upgrade. As I would be dependent on them and they could care less about me. This is the problem with supporting any proprietary infrastructure, what happens when the company decides screw you, you are going to do it my (proprietary company) way and pay them more as a thank you for destroying your business. Added bonus if they force you out of the market through patent/copyright litigation...pathetic.

The best thing any of us can do is to simply stop purchasing their products. Give em the death penalty (since Citizens United made them people).

What a..

[silverdr]

"Is this the beginning of the end for Android?"

No, and by far no... What a stupid question...

Re:What a..

[Lorien_the_first_one]

1 million phone activations a day isn't even close to the end for Android.

Is this the beginning of the end for Android?

[GbrDead]

No, but it is somewhere in the middle of the end of the USA as a technological leader.

Fuck Apple!

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Fuck Apple. I hope Apple dies a horrible death.

Re:Fuck Apple!

[Issarlk]

Not sure about this... How many RIM or Nokia devices did Samsung ban via an injunction during the last few years?

Re:Fuck Apple!

[horza]

No it's only Apple doing this. And they are losing more than they are winning, though in the case of bringing a frivolous suit and getting an injuction against Samsung just before Christmas trashing their sales, even losing the pathetic case ended up a win for them. The other companies are suing for monetary gain, not to destroy their competitors.

Reforming the patent system will take years. A boycott of Apple products needs to start now.

Phillip.

Re:Fuck Apple!

[andydread]

False equivalence much? Apple started this whole thing by treatening to sue and suing other mobile manufacturers. Microsoft jumped in right after they saw what Apple was doing. They threatened to sue Nokia. Nokia took the threat seriously and sued first.. They threatened to sue Motorola. Motorola took the threat seriously and sued first. They threatened HTC and Samnsung. HTC and Samsung told them to go away and so Apple sued them. Look Apple started this. Everyone knows this. Blaming other companies for not rolling over simply trying to defend them selves when Apple is the clear agressor here is either an excercise in whitewashing this hole issue or an attempt to spread blame. Both totally ridiculous.

Re:Fuck Apple!

[andydread]

Reforming the patent system will take years. A boycott of Apple products needs to start now.

Phillip.

Exactly correct. I will definitely let everyone of my customers know not to purchase any more Apple products and will be there to help everyone I know with Apple products migrate away from their products. When this is brought to the attention of reasonable people it puts a very bad taste in their mouths. People don't like their choices in the marketplace reduced by such sleazy tactics and I will let them know just how sleasy Apple is.

Re:Fuck Apple!

[jareth-0205]

Calm down. Then direct your hatred towards the patent system.

NO! Fuck this! Apple does not *have* to act the way they are acting. Just because you *can* do something does not mean you *have* to do something.

I am fed up with the "amoral company" being a defence for this bullshit. Companies are run by people. People have morals. People can choose the things they do. HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT.

Patent abuse -- by the goose and the gander

[Compaqt]

Survey says:

As CNET's Roger Cheng has explained, the idea "is based on the principle that fair licensing of intellectual property is often needed because sometimes certain ideas and patents just need to be shared for everything to work together properly"

I just wonder if things would work better if Apple Corp. might deign to share the color black with us mere mortals, who have to put up with non-black smartphones with razor sharp corners (sometimes with greater or less than 4 sides!).

NutJobs ...

[giorgist]

Geez is there any reason not to address him that way, his legacy is becoming that of some evil villain that has triggered a doomsday device full of lawers. It strikes me that the US is becoming less and less relevant ... as the Google IO showed, it is the third world countries that is where most of the action is happening.

And the war is on...

[Areyoukiddingme]

I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm getting a definite scorched earth feel these days. The patent Cold War is over. The Patent Hot War is now on. Sadly for the general sentiment around here, it's unlikely that anyone will do anything to fix, dismantle, or otherwise create a permanent solution to the problem of patents in general. Why not? Because these wars are going to create patent lawyer dynasties. We're talking Rockefeller money here. We're talking "Excuse me, Mr. Carnegie, but you're going to have to shift down at the table at the Old Boys Club to make room for Messrs. Dewie, Cheatum, and Howe." Laws are created by lawyers. As far as they're concerned, they've already 'fixed' the system perfectly. In every sense of the word.

Re:And the war is on...

[StripedCow]

Perhaps somebody could figure out how much a modern smartphone would cost if its developers would pay for each and every patent they would be infringing. I'm guessing that would give people who still don't get it a clear signal that something is wrong.

Re:And the war is on...

[Nursie]

Heh.

I'm just waiting for nokia's profits to take a further dive, and for them to look into their patent war chest and make the decision that their patents from the late 90s are being infringed by *everyone* in the mobile space, so let's sue everyone.

That may be MS/Elop's plan here...

Boycott Apple

[dmesg0]

Please explain to all your non-techie friends and family what Apple is doing, and why they shouldn't ever touch any Apple product until they change their way.
It's very easy, I already prevented sale of a at least a few iphones.

Disclaimer: I'm not working for Google, Samsung or any other mobile related company. I'm just disgusted by Apple, and boycotting is the only way to stop them.

Re:Boycott Apple

[fufufang]

I think Apple is destroying the future of the tech industry.

Re:Boycott Apple

[Inda]

It's not very easy. It's very hard.

My closest friend bought the iPhone 4 just over 18 months ago, even after all my efforts. He kept telling me it was an iPhone and that's all that mattered.

He's too cheap to buy the apps, another mate half-jailbroke it, stopping all his banking apps working, iTunes was taking half a day to backup and often failed, the phone wouldn't factory reset, we couldn't even copy his contacts. He's pissed off with the lack of high quality free mapping. No Siri. Dull screen. The list of moans is endless.

He's just bought his daughter one. His wife is getting one in a few weeks time.

I can't understand it. They've seen my S2 connect to their TV via a common USB cable and streaming 1080p. They've seen me wirelessly send files to their laptop. They've seen Google Maps on Android. They've seen the photos it takes. And it's not even the best Android phone any more!

It's not easy at all.

Re:Boycott Apple

[dmesg0]

That's because he's a zealot and you can't do anything about it. It's like arguing with ayatollahs about the existence of god.
I'm talking about normal people, who are not strongly biased towards one company or another. Just explaining why going with Apple is a bad idea usually does the trick.

Re:Boycott Apple

[Mithent]

Android's nature counts against it where advertising and mind-share come into play, I fear. Apple has a huge marketing budget and a single device to push. Individual manufacturers of Android phones usually have multiple devices to advertise at any one time, and want to drive customers towards their own specific Android phones rather than Android as a platform. Google don't advertise Android much, but even if they did, it's a vague concept to sell to consumers, especially when there are so many customised versions. Samsung has started to develop the sort of recognition and identity with the Galaxy S series that allows them to compete, and they're doing very well out of it.

But, yes, I know what you mean. I've tried to persuade people to look at everything on offer and decide what they like the most; if that's the iPhone, great, but at least consider your options. But Apple's marketing is so successful that they're not going out to get a phone, they're going out to get an iPhone, because that's what you get when you want a smartphone. Credit where credit's due I guess, but I wish people wouldn't swallow it up so wholeheartedly.

Re:Boycott Apple

[maxwell demon]

That's because he's a zealot and you can't do anything about it. It's like arguing with ayatollahs about the existence of god.

You mean, if I make a caricature of Steve Jobs, I have to fear death threats?

Re:Boycott Apple

[Uberbah]

That's because he's a zealot and you can't do anything about it. It's like arguing with ayatollahs about the existence of god.

Do you own a mirror?

Re:Boycott Apple

[Truedat]

A bunch of militant tech heads with an axe to grind will just end up putting off more people than recruting - normal folk really don't give a shit. And honestly this whole discussion is so one sided that it beggars belief. As a fan of Apple I would like to hear some coherent arguments as to why their case was without merit, but nothing has been modded high enough for me to read that might sway my opinion.

Because if (and thats a big if) apple are in the right that Samsung has been taking a shortcut on R&D then the ban is the right thing to do. Again nobody has put forward any highly modded arguments other than ad hominem:

(twangs braces, clears throat, mocking voice) "rrrrrounded corners ladies and gentlemen" (cheers from the gallery)

Two options

[Anonymous Coward]

One, buy it overseas, (big PITA,) or Google just sidesteps the whole thing by selling the Google Nexus 10.2, which is different from the Nexus 10.1 in the following important respect: the name is different, it's a different product, (it has a different name,) and so it's different, and then just go ahead and sell anyway.

Google can sit back and take this, or they can use their powers for evil, and make searches for the name of the judge who issued the ban pull up pages of close-up photographs of syphilitic, pus-oozing assholes, and figurines made of dog shit.

Anecdotal evidence warning....

[AbRASiON]

EVERYONE I know with an opinion on this topic is getting put MORE off Apple devices by it than on. I work on a floor of 40 nerds / gadget freaks, there is only 3 iphones left and 2 of those users intend to switch to Android as well.

Apple are doing themselves no favours at all.

Re:Anecdotal evidence warning....

[cmdrbuzz]

Ever thought that Gadget freaks are not the target market for the iPhone?!

I write software for my day job, and the last thing I want to do when I'm on my own time is piss around with tweaking / rooting / fiddling with my phone. I just want it to work. Calendars, email, apps, online banking the whole thing.

So, for /me/, an iPhone is the best phone I could have. Smart phone that doesn't require endless support to "Just Work".

Sorry that you guys aren't enjoying the iPhone, but to be fair, its all about what works for you, and the iPhone works for /most/ people. And for the others there is Windows Phone or Android. Just don't under-estimate the amount of people that /don't/ want to tweak their phone all the time!

Re:Anecdotal evidence warning....

[Anonymous Coward]

(anon as I already modded) We use Google Apps at work and with Android it "Just Works". Upon getting a new phone, just supply your credentials and bam - there's your email, calendar (also of my colleagues), company-wide IM, the works; there's no tweaking or fiddling whatsoever. Granted, not everybody uses Google services for their business, but if you do, I don't see how it could be any simpler. WRT online banking - I don't know how the US banks work online, but here all of them simply have secure web sites, I've been able to do online banking with a phone since like forever (well, ever since Nokia included a Webkit-based browser in Symbian - before the iPhone, I might add).

Re:Anecdotal evidence warning....

[thaylin]

I want my phone to work as well, however I want it to work how I want it to work, not how apple wants it to work.

Re:Anecdotal evidence warning....

[cmdrbuzz]

Cool. Well then looks like Android is something that will work for you better than it would for me.

Best of luck. Esp if your manufacturer or carrier blocks the latest updates. Or if you cannot find drivers for the H/W if you want to "roll your own".

Re:Anecdotal evidence warning....

[hairyfish]

Ever thought that Gadget freaks are not the target market for the iPhone?!

No but gadget freaks generally lead the charge in this space. When iPhone first came out in this part of the world, my every nerd friend I know got one. It was the best product on the market and a whole department of iPhone owners generally filtered down to techy natured regular folk, then to mainstream. Right now, I'd say 90% of those nerds are have all traded to Android. My techy natured acquaintances are about 50:50, and the regular folk are probably closer to 80:20 (iPhone's way).

Sorry that you guys aren't enjoying the iPhone, but to be fair, its all about what works for you, and the iPhone works for /most/ people.

Android works too. In fact it works for more people since more people buy Android than Apple

don't under-estimate the amount of people that /don't/ want to tweak their phone all the time!

Rooting has nothing to do with it. Android does everything Apple can plus more without rooting or tweaking, and it cost less. Don't underestimate the amount of people that want the most amount of shiny for their dollar.

SLASHDOT LOVES APPLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Inspite of all the negative remarks about apple here, Slashdot is in love with apple.

Just ask a question about how to get work done because you're a bit fustrated with Gnome3......... The overwhelming response...... "Why not just get a mac book"
My wife wants a tablet to use in the Kitchen to look at recipies, etc..... "Just buy her an ipad"
Every time ...........

I am not fooled by all the bullshit posts here about Apple because of this injunction...... Everytime slashdot secretly recommends an ipad, iphone or macbook while pretending to hate apple, it empowers Apple to do more bullshit like this.

Disgusting.

windows 8 will destroy Apple

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Watch out. Fuck the iphone. Windows Phone is the futucha

Re:Um, No

[ToThoseOfUs]

being forced to designed around Apple's patents to make phones that look different and function differently than the iPhone and iPad or to pay a forced licensing fee to utilize the function in past and future devices.

I haven't used an iphone for any period of time, but when I have to use a friend's, I have no idea how to operate that most intuitive of devices.

n.b. I have an android tablet, and feel at home on symbian (r.i.p. is still more advanced than the "modern" smart phone os's, just wasn't as pretty)

It will not change, till we do

[vabruce]

While not letting people rip off your ideas has merit, what does not have merit is using the courts to "compete" against your competition. But, we as consumers will not act to correct the behavior of companies acting this way by not buying their products when they behave badly. We will just sit back and hope things get better. Kind of seems exactly how we also deal with politics...

Oh, for fuck's sake!

[jtownatpunk.net]

When are we going to get some goddamn patent reform???

This is like Chevy suing Toyota because people would buy more Chevy cars if Toyota wasn't selling a similar product. "They use a wheel and foot pedals to control their vehicles. We use a wheel and foot pedals. That's our thing!"

Ya know what? Fuck Apple. Fuck them right in their stupid asses. I was seriously considering making the switch back when they get an LTE iphone (paying full retail to retain my unlimited data plan and an ETF), and pick up a retina MacBook and iPad because they're freakin' gorgeous displays and it will be a year or more before anything like that hits the Android/Windows market and I'd have everything under one roof and this sentence is really long. But if this is how Apple chooses to "compete", fuck 'em. I'll wait for less litigious companies to catch up.

And that's what makes this so damn stupid. The competition is a year or more behind apple in just about everything (except data speed on phones). First to market with a consumer-friendly smartphone. First to market with a retina display smartphone. First to market with a high res tablet. First to market with a high res laptop. It's not enough for Apple to be the first up the mountain, they've got to hang their asses over the edge and shit on everyone below them.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[cmdrbuzz]

Hmm, so just because Apple are ahead of the competition, you think they shouldn't (attempt) to stop other people copying them...?

Apple compete by researching and designing their own products. They just want others to do the same.

And if you are going to let a companies actions to protect its research and development stop you purchasing a new Macbook Pro (and iPad?), then thats your call. Just don't pretend is for "righteous" reasons.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[amoeba1911]

Apple compete by researching and designing their own products. They just want others to do the same.

Yes, that's why Microsoft spent four times as much on R&D than Apple...

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[cmdrbuzz]

What has that got to do with this story?!

Microsoft does lots of R&D, Apple does lots of R&D. Samsung? Not so much on their phone it would look like.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[McDee]

Apple compete by researching and designing their own products. They just want others to do the same.

A lot of the anger here is because the patents that Apple are using are garbage technically speaking but because they have been granted Apple is using them to stifle competition.

Let's see: slide to unlock. I have a 'phone with a touchscreen and some physical buttons. I can interact with the 'phone by:
    - pressing the buttons, one or more at a time, in a given sequence
    - touching the screen in one or more places
    - moving my finger(s) around the screen

The above list is *it* in terms of the user communicating with the 'phone (I'm ignoring the gyroscope and GPS for the moment). *All* types of communication are going to be some combination of these. The fact is that Apple patented one of these (already known and frankly blatantly obvious) methods of interaction in a specific situation (taking the 'phone from a locked to an unlocked state) and call it "innovative" and are using it to block the sales of competing products.

Guarding your technical innovations: fine. Reducing competition through enforcing bogus claims backed by a broken legal system: not fine.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs, 1996

Righteous indeed.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[jtownatpunk.net]

Really? Really? Swipe-to-unlock is amazing innovation that should be used as a club to hobble the competition? Entering data for a search query is another, along with processing that request and returning the results. Those are the kinds of things we're talking about here. Not concepts or innovations that have years of R&D behind them.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[Uberbah]

Uh huh. And if Samsung was the one getting the upper hand and the importing of iPhones was banned somewhere, would you be dying to get an iPhone just to spite Samsung?

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[Oakey]

No R&D involved from Samsung in that retina display Apple are using then?

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[EmagGeek]

>> First to market with a consumer-friendly smartphone. First to market with a retina display smartphone. First to market with a high res tablet. First to market with a high res laptop.

Patently FALSE on all accounts.

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[cmdrbuzz]

You missed the "on their phone" bit...

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[fwoop]

Hmm, so just because Apple are ahead of the competition, you think they shouldn't (attempt) to stop other people copying them...?

Apple compete by researching and designing their own products. They just want others to do the same.

And if you are going to let a companies actions to protect its research and development stop you purchasing a new Macbook Pro (and iPad?), then thats your call. Just don't pretend is for "righteous" reasons.

So will Apple reimburse google after copying android vertical notifications?

Re:Oh, for fuck's sake!

[couchslug]

"When are we going to get some goddamn patent reform???"

Never. Business owns the US and owns both Parties and the public are and will remain too stupid to understand the issues.

Silver Lining

[Bill Dimm]

Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed.

Re:Silver Lining

[QuasiSteve]

At which point Samsung will have $95M but will have to re-start their advertising campaign, essentially re-launch the product, and target a market that has just bought a bunch of competing products - among which iDevices from which Apple stands to gain a lot more through e.g. app store purchases, third party products such as docks that use licensed tech, etc..

And that's assuming that by the time the decision lands the device is even relevant enough in the market to be relaunched. It may be better to launch a new product instead.
Which Apple would then seek an injunction against.

$95M - I'd love to have it, but I'm guessing Samsung are not particularly impressed.

Re:Silver Lining

[gnasher719]

At which point Samsung will have $95M...

No, $95 million is the bond. If Apple loses the court case, Samsung will get however much the court decides they should get. If it's up to $95 million, Samsung is paid out of the bond and the rest returned to Apple. If it is more, Samsung gets the bond and Apple has to hand over the rest.

Re:Silver Lining

[ebonum]

No. It isn't. If Apple can force Samsung out of the market for 1 year, Apple's 95 million USD will be very well spent. Samsung will be wounded. It's not about winning the patent case. It is about killing the enemy at any cost.

Re:Silver Lining

[dbIII]

I think that amount shows what the Judge thought about it. There was probably nothing they could do to stop a frivolous injunction wasting the court's time because the requirements as so lax, but they could make it hurt!

Re:Silver Lining

[mathfeel]

At which point Samsung will have $95M but will have to re-start their advertising campaign, essentially re-launch the product, and target a market that has just bought a bunch of competing products - among which iDevices from which Apple stands to gain a lot more through e.g. app store purchases, third party products such as docks that use licensed tech, etc..

I would love to see them use that money and make a commercial that say: "Buy Samsung, because the other guy is a complete doushbag."

Re:Silver Lining

[dbIII]

No, the judge just wants to stick it to Apple

No, the judge wants to stick it to whoever is using an injunction as a blunt instrument. Samsung has pulled the same stunt on Apple in Australia, and if they do the same trick with an injunction on an Apple product in the US they'll probably have to pay up just as much.
If you managed to get "fanboy" out of my two sentence post above you really need to shed some baggage. I don't have an iAnything of any sort and never had, or an android device, I'm instead commenting on the courts and a waste of taxpayers money being increasingly used to stifle competition unfairly.

Can we end software patents now?

[Mithent]

I'm really getting tired of tech news consisting almost entirely of mobile device manufacturers suing each other over patents for general concepts and design principles. Technology progresses and consumers benefit when ideas and concepts can spread. This isn't the same as, say, drug development, where millions of dollars go into R&D, and that massive investment must be recouped to protect innovation. These are just relatively obvious ideas where the real work is in the implementation, integration and promotion, not in dreaming up a UI concept.

Maybe this would be a good place to mention the EFF's new campaign to reform software patents?

Apple *IS* a patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

This sentence isn't true: "A patent troll is a non-practicing entity"

A patent troll is abuses the incompetent system within USPTO to gain financial advantage, sure they mostly don't make things (why bother when its easy money), but some do, and Microsoft and Apple both make things AND are patent trolls.

So in Apple's case they patented research of others that they used in the iPod Touch, and claimed to have invented it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/and-boy-have-we-patented-it-2010-3

I think they just saw Han's work, myself, rather than go back and copy the CERN work from the 70's which covered the same slide, pinch etc. gestures.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

You can't really blame them, the USPTO has showed it will issue patents to anyone for things that aren't inventions, to people who didn't invent them, and for things that are obvious (and in some cases industry common practice at the time), and of course there will be roaches that come out and feed on this feeding opportunity.

"Defending your patents doesn't make you a patent troll. "
Once you get your USPTO issued joke patents, defending them with a straight face IS PATENT TROLLING. The art is to not laugh when you tell the judge how you invented these things.

Re:short memories

[Mithent]

Apple were first to commercialise them, but mouse-driven graphical user interfaces were first seen on the Xerox Alto.

Really?

[cmdrbuzz]

You hate Apple because they required you to update your operating system when you installed a new development kit?

Seriously?

If thats enough for you to hate a company, then you may want to look at anger management classes.

Best of luck with iPhone development on Fedora then.

Re:Really?

[Antarius]

I'll answer your statements in order.

Firstly, yes, I'm sure it does cost tens of millions. I didn't want to risk exaggerating the figures, however. Without access to financial reports, any figure I quote would be akin to pulling a figure out of my arse.

Secondly, some components are designed for specific models, and the first time something is engineered there are no off-the-shelf components. A self-levelling-leg wouldn't be something they could suddenly order, for example. If they decide they want that feature and it hasn't been done before, they design it.

Thirdly, yes, clean room can be done from specifications. It can also be done by having 2 teams; One to reverse-engineer the original and see what makes it tick, then describe it to a second team that has never touched or seen the insides of the original. Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM's BIOS is a perfect example of this scenario.

Fourthly, not my intention at all. Yes, there are original ideas conceived in Korea, I was simply drawing a comparison to a scenario I was familiar with as I was amused that Samsung was being accused of similar. Ultimately Samsung differs in this example in that they produced an item that had superior elements in some areas. The LG example produced an inferior quality that, yes, walked across the floor because it rattled so badly when hitting its 1800rpm spin. (They felt that the counterbalancing in the German product was over engineered and possibly didn't take into consideration that "Average Joe" doesn't ensure their machines are level.)

I note another post from you indicates that the Germans don't see this in an offensive fashion. I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then, and my feelings are just misplaced loyalty and overcompensation. Because if you weren't correct - if the Germans felt threatened by these tactics - that there'd be a lot of legal proceedings that would result in product bans. ;-)

Re:Really?

[David Jao]

The point, which you missed completely, is that the Android SDK works perfectly fine on even quite old versions of Fedora. There is no law of nature that says development kits must require an updated operating system. We have the choice to use iOS alternatives such as Android (at least until Apple sues Android out of existence). If those alternatives are better in some way, then that's a pretty valid reason to use them in my book. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer Android on the basis that the Android SDK runs on multiple versions of three different host environments (Windows, OS X, Linux), unlike iOS.

Re:Really?

[lamapper]

they required you to update your operating system

It should always be the owner/users choice to update and/or upgrade. If a company "forces" you to update or upgrade and does not allow you to say H E double Hockey Sticks NO, than you are one forced update/upgrade from an expensive paper weight. Of course your work flow will be interrupted at the absolutely worst possible time in your life...way too much business risk. Yet companies assume that every day with so many products these days. Its simply a sign of how far Data Processing / Information Technology has fallen as a profession.

Of course weak tarriff / trade / international economic policy has been slowly destroying the fabric of the USA for well over 50 years. To connect the dots...jobs offshoring, jobs going overseas, job losses, wages driven below the basement and into the sewer.

Of course I am not saying auto update and auto upgrade is destroying the American family...a bit of a stretch... though I would say that taxes have never been lower and the promised jobs for those lower taxes have never materialized.

I guess what I am saying is that forced policies, taking away freedom, regardless of the miss guided reasons is just wrong. I might not agree with your statement, but I defend with my life, based on the US Constitution, Its Admendments and the Bill of Rights which are given to each of us by birth in America, your right to say it...if you do not do likewise....your loss. Guess its easier to attack the man and tell him he needs Anger Management. Of course you would probably say I need Anger Management classes too...talk about reaching...pathetic.

In America today, there is very little NEW either economically or control-wise (church/state) under the sun. If you are willing to give up a smidgen of freedom for any reason, especially fake security, you honestly do deserve neither. A very smart man said that hundreds of years ago.

For those that can not see the connection between freedom and required/force updates and current economic, business and political policies over the last 100 years...well that is the reason you mistakenly vote against your own best interests...wake up. There is so much more to life than talking points...which most often are designed to prevent you from connecting the dots and realizing what is being done to you, behind your back, out of the sunlight.

Updates, upgrades SHALL always be the owner/users choice. If that choice is taken away, don't hate the entity, just stop doing any business with them. And share your experience with family, friends, co-workers, strangers so that others will do likewise. I agree with other posters, Apples actions here is costing them current Apple enthusiasts. Those that have left Apple are laughing all the way to the bank, where they notice their balance is larger for being smart enough to purchase better technology (non Apple), that can do more, for less money.

The joke is on Apple.

Re:Really?

[cmdrbuzz]

Apple didn't force you to update, just if you wanted to use a NEW development platform, then it was built using a NEWER version of the OS, so if you WANTED to use it, you would have to update his OS.

No forcing. You could have (and probably did) continue on just fine without updating. Its always your choice, just sometimes if you want to run program X then you may need to meet minimum requirements Y. And remember XCode is much more than just an iOS development platform, its for the whole Mac OS X as well.

And I'll leave the rest of your waffling, irrelevant comments for someone else to decipher. Though quite how you link minimum requirements for a development platform to your "Freedom" and the US Constitution I don't follow.

Re:short memories

[greenfruitsalad]

You DO know about Xerox PARC, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)#Accomplishments

(or does knowing about them equal being Apple hater?)

Re:So, before you start developing a new product .

[Neil_Brown]

work in the legal department is more important than R&D

I'm a geeky lawyer employed by a company (rather than in private practice), and I would disagree with that. But it seems a bit odd to me to separate legal and regulatory issues from R&D, unless you are also separating market research and arguing that is more important, or user experience testing — to build a successful product (as opposed to something which merely works), there's far more involved than just lab work. The lab work is important, as are the other parts.

Should there be so much law and regulation — I don't think so. Even if there is a need for a particular law, it should be sufficiently easy to (a) find and (b) understand that one need not consult a lawyer — although when one pays a lawyer, hopefully one is paying for advice based on experience, rather than for a copy of some legislation. But, with the proliferation of laws and regulations (some with clear benefits, some less so), having a lawyer *involved* in product development from an early stage makes sense — far more so that designing and developing something, and then going to a lawyer close to the end, and realising that there are problems.

It would seem odd to try and build a successful product without working out if there is demand, whether the price people would be willing to pay would give a profit and so on, but all these activities should be carried out alongside (or, really, before) the development if the aim is to develop a product, rather than just research in the hope of finding something.

Re:short memories

[cmdrbuzz]

You DO know that Apple licensed those features from Xerox, right?

Licensed, not copied without permission...

Re:Um, No

[IamTheRealMike]

I don't understand why you believe Apple can be placated with some design tweaks and different features. Do you work for Apple or something? You're literally the only person posting on this story taking Apples side. I work for Google and I've seen how my colleagues have consistently worked long hours to innovate and create new features. The Galaxy Nexus is an amazing phone. It's thin, and light, and doesn't even have any hardware buttons on the front at all - yet Apple still are not happy. If you can't see why you're blind.

Apples goal is not to get competitors to "design around" their patents. This has happened several times already, the Samsung Galaxy 3 has even been called out by tech review sites for having a "lawyer approved design" (it's not rectangular, it does not have slide to unlock, etc). Apple keep coming, with newer and even more stupid patents, because their goal is not individuality, it is the utter destruction of all competitors. Steve Jobs himself said that in words so clear nobody can re-interpret them.

What's more, it's very hard to make an Android phone that doesn't share design elements with the iPhone these days, because Apple has copied Android many times in the past few years, for example, its notifications tray is identical to the design that first shipped in Android 1.0, and inferior to the one shipping in Jellybean. Android 1.0 also shipped with a universal search box and pluggable API for it, it shipped with suspend/resume multi-tasking that is extremely similar to the (very unique) design Android came up with, and so on.

the combination of ignorance and arrogance

[decora]

apple did not invent the floppy drive

apple did not invent the mouse

apple did not invent the windowing operating system

apple did not invent the cellphone

apple did not invent the smartphone

apple did not invent lossy audio encoding

apple did not invent portable music players

apple did not invent the online music store

apple did not invent unix

apple did not invent digital typography

apple did not invent video chats

apple did not invent the laptop

apple did not invent the internet

apple did not invent hard disk drives

apple did not invent fiber optic communications

apple did not invent wireless networks

apple did not invent OpenGL 3d graphics subsystem

apple did not invent voice recognition

apple did not invent outsourcing

Re:the combination of ignorance and arrogance

[swell]

I'm sorry, did I say Apple invented these things?

Re:the combination of ignorance and arrogance

[decora]

"The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D."

Re:the combination of ignorance and arrogance

[cmdrbuzz]

You are being deliberately dense. What the OP is saying, is that R&D was involved in the FINAL product, not just the base components (that you for some reason listed)

Its like you saying Intel didn't invent sand, so why should they get copyright and patent rights on their CPUs. I mean both of them are made from Silica and sand was around first!

I don't agree on some of Apple's current lawsuits, but some of the copying (at the start at least) was too blatant. And instead of admitting it (Samsung anyhow) decided to attempt to hit back. Like a bully. Except they are about to get put back into their place because going back on FRAND agreements is frowned apon.

Re:short memories

[greenfruitsalad]

Interesting... Then why on earth would Xerox have sued Apple for blatantly stealing these features without properly licensing them?

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

citation needed

[decora]

i keep hearing this 'they licensed it from xerox' stuff without any links to any original documentation.

the problem is, even if they did license some of it, its irrelevant

if some small company did to Apple today what Apple did to Xerox in the 1970s, Apple would sue them out of existence.

Re:citation needed

[cmdrbuzz]

Wonder over to your favorite search engine and search for 'apple xerox parc'

The first link is the wikipedia link (for me anyhow)
for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

Look under the Adoption by Apple section:
"The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product "

And:

"However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example[6]:
The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other."

Oh and about the Xerox lawsuit:
"The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons"

Re:citation needed

[andydread]

This basically describes what Apple does in a nutshell. Shamelessly copy other people's R&D. Polish it a bit then commercialize it and call it their invention then sue others for being inspired by the products they release in the marketplace. Apple is true scum of the earth. The enbodyment of hipocrisy.

Re:Silver Lining is tarnished

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed.

But who will reimburse the consumers for the damages we suffer from having these devices temporarily off the market, if the decision is later reversed?

Re:short memories

[Cederic]

The original post was claiming that everybody wanted to copy Apple's GUI.

The GUI wasn't Apples. The fact that Apple licenced it is both irrelevant and also proves the fucking point.

Yes that's contradictory. This is me, strolling downstairs to find some lunch, generally giving no hoots whatsoever.

Re:Um, No

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're clearly not biased at all...

Okay so I don't work for Google or Apple or any of the above. I'm a serious developer and I own or have owned every single version of the iPhones, iPad, I have two Android phones (including the Galaxy S) and an android tablet the 10.1 all sitting next to me now.

Google's software and Samsung's hardware is far superior to Apples. The development tools are truly cross platform, and you can literally see new innovations in every area. All I see when i use an iPhone is a clunky dated square screen that barley works, requires the most horrendous software to manage it, and locks you into Apple's flawed vision of the future.

Apple's day is dawning, as far as I'm concerned all they brought to the market was an expensive phone where they stole every good idea in it from someone else. Hell even the touch screen wasn't their innovation, HP had been doing it for years with the ipac and windows ce which was YEARS ahead of its time.

If you want to support Apple and your proud to call your self a fan boy then so be it, but here on Slashdot we actually pay attention and think about what is going on in our industry, if you don't like it might I suggest a nice Apple forum where you guys can jerk yourself off happily.

apple is not foxconn

[decora]

the word "make" seems to have been horribly abused in recent years. Apple does not 'make' anything other than software and business processes. They are not a manufacturer. They are a combiner and outsourcer.

Re:short memories

[cmdrbuzz]

"The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

and http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

"A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc."

You can sue for anything (in the US at least). Winning.... Whole different matter.

perfect brand!

[hussainrj]

What is the best price of Nexus and how we can compare with apple's.

iLotus

[decora]

1 "do you remember apple retail stores?"

2 "yeah, they had this weird kind of dead-tech post modern bullshit theme going on, "

1 "like al pacino's wife in Heat?"

2 "yeah, like al pacino's wife in Heat"

1 "so what happened to them?"

2 "you see that Twist Berry over there? the yogurt place? "

1 "yeah"

2 "you see those big silver things coming out of the side..."

1 "oh shit.. .this was an apple store!"

2 "thats right. until they started suing everybody, instead of making new products"

1 "fuck... i remember when i used to go on itunes..."

2 "yeah. itunes, ipod, all that ishit. all down the shitter. "

1 "but why? why... "

2 "its ancient greek stuff man. greed. power. all that stuff. go read Aeschylus, its all explained pretty well"

1 "ok. ill download it on my Nook."

2 "Speaking of nook, do you remember that store called Borders?"

Re:iLotus

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Nice dialog, but I'm lost on the punchline. Where is it going? I guess I'm a little slow this morning. How does Borders fit in?

Re:iLotus

[gl4ss]

b&n bought borders.

Re:iLotus

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Oh, thanks. I didn't realize that as I wasn't following that part of the story too closely.

Patents expire

[tepples]

"They use a wheel and foot pedals to control their vehicles. We use a wheel and foot pedals. That's our thing!"

Cars are a lot older than cellular-connected pocket computers and a lot of the really basic patents have long since expired as of 2012. How do you know there weren't such lawsuits in the first 20 years of mass production of automobiles?

Re:Patents expire

[jtownatpunk.net]

I'm sure there were plenty of absurd lawsuits over obvious "innovation". That doesn't make them right or reasonable.

Re:Um, No

[Teresita]

On the cusp of his demise Steve Jobs saw the whole panoply of time. He saw the demise of Android, and said, "Oh wow! Oh wow!"

such a shame

[neo8750]

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/60000/2000/800/162865/162865.strip.gif

So is Android done for?

[arthurpaliden]

Not in the rest of the advancing real world. Only in the back waters of it. You know places like the US who, unlike third world countries like Rwanda 91% of pop with national healthcare, are destroying a climate of innovation.

Re:short memories

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs 1996

Well they both have wheels and doors

[drstevep]

Same thing happened when I bought a car. Okay, I'm not a car expert, but I really wanted a Camry. Went to a Chevy dealer, they both begin with C and that confused me. Doors, windows, wheels, I could have SWORN I got a Camry. Boy, was I surprised when I got home and finally saw the GM logo on the key!

Re:short memories

[gnasher719]

Interesting... Then why on earth would Xerox have sued Apple for blatantly stealing these features without properly licensing them?

Because someone at Xerox thought that Xerox's deal with Apple hadn't worked out very well financially for Xerox and wanted to make more money. And they couldn't really go to court and say "hey, we made this deal where Apple is allowed to look at our features and copy them for some money, but we want more money", so they adjusted their claims in the court accordingly.

It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[Quantum_Infinity]

I was thinking of buying Google Nexus phone this weekend. Woke up this morning to read this terribly sad news. It's still available on Google Play site. Is it advisable to still buy it while it is available (probably for a few hours)?

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[MimeticLie]

I'm satisfied with mine. Since you were going to buy it already, presumably you've researched the competition enough to decide that it's the phone for you. I'd say go for it. The same reasons that made it a good option are still there, and it's not like Google will stop supporting the thing because Samsung is barred from selling it in the US.

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[David Jao]

The phones will still be available from Google Play, for much longer than just a few hours. This lawsuit is between Apple and Samsung. The injuction against selling Galaxy Nexus phones in the US applies to Samsung only. Google is not a party to this lawsuit. The judge in this lawsuit is not capable of ordering Google to do anything, since Apple has not sued Google. Bottom line is, Google (or any other third party, e.g. Verizon) can continue to sell Galaxy Nexus phones for as long as they have the phones to sell. Obviously, once they run out of stock, they will no longer be able to buy new stock from Samsung.

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[MachDelta]

If I were buying a new phone today, the only other one i'd consider is the SGS3. I'm happy with the Nexus though.

Also, I doubt the Nexus will disappear overnight. It's more likely they'll be able to sell their current remaining stock, but not replenish it. And hell, you can always ship one down from Canada.

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[GrumpyOldMan]

Yes. It is awesome. I got mine 2 months ago, and could not be happier. My wife has my old Nexus One.

The one thing you need to be a aware of is that this phone is HUGE!. Make sure to get a case that has some kind of belt-clip built in, as the phone + case will not fit comfortably in any stand-alone phone holster or most pants/shirt pockets. I'm probably going to have to just throw away the case I bought for it, or try to jury-rig some kind of belt clip into it.

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[shutdown -p now]

They banned imports, not sales. So it'll be available for as long as stocks last.

For the price at which Google is selling it unlocked ($400), it's an absolute steal - better bang for the buck than any high-end smartphone currently on the market, Apple offerings included. For US specifically, it also has this nice feature of supporting 3G on both AT&T and T-Mo, which lets you switch between the two as you see fit without being locked into either one. Combine that with T-Mo's $30 unlimited data plan, and the fact that the phone has WiFi tethering out of the box with no need to pay anything extra, and you have a winner.

Re:It's Still Available, should I buy it?

[squiggleslash]

It has a ten hour battery life. If you're OK with that, or OK with buying a longer life battery (the bigger ones that make the phone look a little weird give you something like a 30 hour battery life) then go ahead.

Also note: no SD card slot.

I used to like Apple, now I hate Apple

[walterbyrd]

Apple is nothing but a litigious scam company - worse than Microsoft.

I very much doubt I will ever buy an Apple product. Not that Apple needs my business.

I cannot understand how anybody could sink so low as to buy from Apple.

I am with you 100%

[walterbyrd]

I am completely disgusted with Apple. Apple is worse than Microsoft, a completely shameless company.

Aside from Apple's shameful business practices, Apple's technology is nothing special. Linux and Android are superior, and cheaper.

If you can't make superior products

[Snaller]

You sue i guess.

How long until Google is sued for Nexus 7 tablet?

[walterbyrd]

Will Apple even wait until the product ships?

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[AngryDeuce]

But nobody uses the shit sandwich that is Safari. I literally know not a single OSX user that doesn't use Chrome or Firefox as their main browser and would remove Safari if it was possible, much like pretty much everyone I know with a Windows machine would dump I.E. in a second if that were possible.

slide to unlock is in MY PANTS

[cheekyboy]

Dude, a slide my ZIPPER to unlock my big snake to fuck apple in the ass.

Stupid lawyers, biggest waste of scum in the universe.

thats not the judges job

[cheekyboy]

If the judge owns any apple products or shares, he has conflict of interest.

Re:thats not the judges job

[Kalriath]

That could be difficult. As a general rule, everyone has Apple shares (usually via their retirement fund. I know I do). And if they don't, they either have Apple products, or star in World Vision ads.

Apple 1. Consumer 0

[bool2]

No further comment.

still don't see the word "license" in there

[decora]

still waiting.

Re:still don't see the word "license" in there

[cmdrbuzz]

What do you think "and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product" means then?

Just because I used the word "license" and the article uses the word "understanding" you don't seem to understand it means the same thing?

The "understanding" or "license" would have been in a written contract between Apple and Xerox.

Stop being deliberately stupid.

im sorry for listening to the OP's words

[decora]

instead of what i should have interpreted those words to mean

""The marketplace has innovators and it has mass marketers. It has leaders and followers. It has companies who invest in R&D and it has cost cutting copycats. I'll support those with R&D.""

seemed pretty clear to me. if you want to 'support those with R&D", you should buy a silicon graphics workstation... oh wait, you cant, they went bankrupt.

Re:im sorry for listening to the OP's words

[swell]

OP here-

I agree. Many innovators die on the vine. Apple nearly failed several times. Sad that Amiga never reached its full potential.

Apples System8 OS sucked before NeXT

[cheekyboy]

Apple is still selling billions of $ worth of phones.

It should shut up and keep selling.

Until its iphone5 tanks, it should STFU.

Can Samsung sue apple if apple makes its iphone5 larger than the current iphone4, because jobs said it would never make one bigger?

wtf

[SuperDre]

why in the hell was the injuction granted? the nexus doesn't even look a bit like any iphone? I guess Apple gave a bundle of money to the judge, or he has a lot of apple stocks.

no punchline

[decora]

borders had a branded e reader called the Kobo shortly before the company went bankrupt.

Re:no punchline

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Ouch.

Monopoly

[Kupfernigk]

And they would then be subject to all kinds of monopoly legislation, both in the US and the EU. The main reason that Microsoft stopped Apple from going under was so that they could claim that they had no monopoly on desktop operating systems. If Apple had folded, Microsoft would probably have had to inject cash into Linux, Gnome and/or KDE. They wouldn't want to do that...Apple had to succeed well enough to be a credible desktop threat, but not well enough to be a real threat.

Re:Um, No

[dbIII]

Going by the last few runs of this stupidity (Germany, Australia etc) it's going to get thrown out of court without anyone settling or doing a redesign. The last few times were thrown out of court as a mere delaying tactic designed to halt a release of a rival's product instead of having any legal ground at all. It's a pity that so little is needed to call an injunction.

Really?

[Kupfernigk]

I doubt this story. First, it costs tens of millions to design a washing machine up front. Second, with anything like this you do not design all the parts up front. You buy standard catalogue parts wherever possible to save money and, ideally, allow multiple supply sources. Third, what you describe is not "clean room". Clean room is when you take a functional specification (spins at 1200 rpm say) and engineer that without ever seeing how the original product does it. It gives protection against certain design copyrights such as source code and engineering drawings. And fourth, a sufficiently close copy would not "walk" during the spin cycle because this is a matter of drum balancing.

The object seems to be to suggest that Koreans just copy. They don't.

license is a specific legal term

[decora]

that has specific legal meanings. a copyright license applies to copyrighted works. a patent license applies to patented inventions. then there are performance rights, recording rights, etc etc etc.

a license is a specific legal agreement that would have been worked out between Apple and Xerox. it implies that Xerox knew what Apple would be doing with its tech, that it profited appropriately from it, and so forth and so on.

a casual "understanding" has many different features and artefacts.

furthermore, Wikipedia is not a great citation, although it has great citations within it. again, i am waiting for someone to point me to the book or journalistic article that discusses the exact circumstances of Apple's deal with Xerox. i am sure they are out there, i am just too lazy to look them up, but the fact it is so hard to find something saying "Apple licensed XYZ from Xerox" is a bit offputting.

Re:license is a specific legal term

[cmdrbuzz]

If you are too lazy to search for it, doesn't give you the right to say it doesn't exist!

And the agreement between Apple and Xerox would have been a written contract. Why do you think the judge in the later case that Xerox attempted to bring against Apple was pretty much dismissed (all but one claim that Xerox owned stardock, which was not in doubt)? If Apple didn't have a written and agreed contract (that you might even call a "license") with Xerox over the GUI, how could they prevail?

And the links I posted to your comments included New Yorker articles. If you really want to find out more (and you should if you intend to call other people out on it) then I suggest you start there. Or even read the court transcript.

TL;DR? Research before you post!

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[jo_ham]

You don't know many Mac users then. All the ones I know do use it, including me.

I use both Safari and Chrome - both have their quirks, but both a decent browsers. I swapped my second browser to Chrome from Firefox, which I used to use all the time.

German engineering

[Kupfernigk]

I used to work with German companies to develop both components and machinery for my company, and I do not agree. The Germans I worked with had a high regard for Japanese and Korean machinery. Their view was that German manufacturing and skills were a few years ahead, and that much of their superiority was in the education and training of the workforce. A German machine tool was better because it might use the latest material, drive or control technology, but mainly because it had been put together by people who were that much better than their Far Eastern competitors.

In fact, one of our suppliers used to sell their machines to the Far East after 18 months to 2 years because by then they had worn to the extent that they were about as good as new Far Eastern machines. By doing this, they helped German companies keep their machine tool sales up.

Re:German engineering

[drinkypoo]

To be fair, I should always include a disclaimer that says "Asia except for Japan" because we all know that Japanese tools are not only actually designed by Japanese but they are also the best, bar none. (Sorry, Germans.)

I've lost track of how much total shit I've seen from Korea, though. Sorry.

Interestign thing on topic on the same site:

[dbIII]

The URL itself puts it pretty well:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/in-bid-for-patent-sanity-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/

Remind me what happened to Florian

[Kupfernigk]

Do you remember Florian Mueller who persuaded a number of news outlets that he was an expert on patents (though I do not believe he is a qualified patent attorney in any jurisdiction)?

He has been very quiet lately, hasn't he? I wonder why?

just like this movie trailer, RE6

[cheekyboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7LWCKMFKk8

Future of USA. hehe

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[MisterSquid]

I literally know not a single OSX user that doesn't use Chrome or Firefox as their main browser and would remove Safari if it was possible, much like pretty much everyone I know with a Windows machine would dump I.E. in a second if that were possible.

Well count one right here then.

I'm a web developer, run several virtualized instances of Windows and have Chrome, and Firefox installed on my host OS as well as my virtualized Windows machines, but I use Safari as my main browser.

USA: land of freedom...

[peppepz]

...as long as you have the right lawyers.

Time to start tossing iPad crates into the Boston harbour.

Re:If they don't want it, don't sell it to them.

[Clueless Nick]

I sometimes have the same fantasy. Unfortunately, the US is such a large and prestigious market that it would be suicide for a company to boycott it, plus the shareholders would summarily execute the management. To add insult to injury, Apple and its mind-controlled robots would claim victory.

This applies to component sales to Apple as well.

Re:So, before you start developing a new product .

[billybob_jcv]

It has always been this way - just ask Nikola Tesla.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[Imagix]

Everybody's got their anecdotal evidence. All of the Mac users I happen to know prefer browsers other than Safari. Looking down at my Dock.. I've already removed the Safari icon. And with Chrome coming to iOS, I'm going to look at it there too.

Re:STFU, apple copied IBM keyboards

[MisterSquid]

They copied ascii.

Your posts in this thread reveal more about your irrational prejudice than Apple's patent-troll behavior, especially when you start enumerating the adoption of open standards as copying.

One more - 1994 FFS!

[dbIII]

From Wikipedia: "MetaCrawler was originally developed in 1994"

Madness

[nbsr]

The world's got crazy, and I'm not talking just about Apple (which is no exception, btw). But, how come exporting stuff is good (in it's own, rather than as a means of getting money for importing stuff), or why import restrictions are considered to be a penalty to producers rather than consumers? Another example, people often say, even on /., that cheap immigrant workforce from overseas is bad and the solution to it is to make it expensive. What?! Since when paying more is better than paying less?

All this BS comes from a false assumption that wealth is the amount of green paper we shuffle each day. No, it's still the amount of stuff and services we can buy, so low prices are as important as high income. This seems like an easy mistake to spot, unless you are a politician, who gets a share of our income but not our losses.

This will have almost no effect, folks

[American Patent Guy]

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that we're talking about a product here that's small enough to be dropped in a briefcase, or shipped in a small box. This will only increase the demand for the product across the border. If I'm a consumer and I really want one of these, all I have to do is take a quick trip across the border, or find someone over there who will sell and ship me one. Do you think Apple's going to pursue damages for that guy, when all they'd recover is a small fraction of the price of one product?

If that doesn't do it, consider this: If the infringing feature is implemented in software, then all Samsung has to do is release a new rev. of their OS without the feature, and they're back. Don't you think that Samsung's management has planned out a strategy for this a long, long time ago?

Geez, people. You people would make a great audience for a Godzilla movie!

Re:This will have almost no effect, folks

[American Patent Guy]

Told you!

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/03/ban-on-galaxy-nexus-u-s-sales-upheld-software-patch-to-circumvent-forthcoming/

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[MacGyver2210]

My site already pops up a "Why you shouldn't use Mac" div when you surf there with an OSX or iOS device.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[MacGyver2210]

Fortunately, I show my 'no mac' popup not by browser but by OS.

http://www.geekpedia.com/code47_Detect-operating-system-from-user-agent-string.html

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[jo_ham]

Indeed, that was my point. The OP might not "literally" know anyone who uses Safari, but I was just offering my own anecdote.

I think my experience probably represents the normal distribution a little more - of my Mac using friends all of them use Safari when they need it (usually when Chrome craps out, but that's less and less). One of them uses Chrome exclusively except on her banking website, another is more like me and uses Chrome and Safari equally.

The OP's original proclamation seemed to suggest that because "literally" he didn't know anyone that it obviously extended to all OS X users.

Self awareness?

[Uberbah]

My closest friend bought the iPhone 4 just over 18 months ago, even after all my efforts. He kept telling me it was an iPhone and that's all that mattered.

And what would happen on Slashdot if some dude was loudly insisting to his friends that the iPhone was the One True Device? Nevermind what the friend said he wanted, of course. Faaaaanbbbbbbooooiiiii. By any chance do you have one of these in your house?

They've seen my S2 connect to their TV via a common USB cable and streaming 1080p.

You mean a simple video adapter. So does the iPhone.

They've seen me wirelessly send files to their laptop.

iCloud.

They've seen Google Maps on Android.

Also on iPhone. If you're referring the free navigation, that's something done by Google as an incentive to buy an Android advice.

They've seen the photos it takes.

8 megapixels vs....8 megapixels.

It's not easy at all.

LOL. It's great that you like your Android, but if anyone was half as pushy here on Apple products they'd be laughed out of town.

In related news ...

[PPH]

... Apple sues to stop further viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey for its depiction of an infringing tablet-like device used for reading text, news and other content.

Re:short memories

[Little Brickout]

Please do not besmirch the Apple ][ by associating it with a Mac. The platform's values are totally at odds with those of the Mac's. Every user manual came with schematics and a firmware listing.

Steve Jobs cried when Woz refused to cut down the number of expansion slots from seven to two. ;)

When the graphic interface was commercialized the hacker crowd said 'who needs a mouse and pretty graphic screen when a green command line works just fine'.

Most of those hackers were probably Apple II users. If you recall Apple's old iconic logo you would know the Apple II was all about color.

Short memories indeed.

There should be an Apple tax

[gelfling]

A bona fide tax that takes money from everyone and gives it to Apple. May as well.

Re:short memories

[swell]

OP here-

I apologize. Some at /. have long memories undistorted by prejudice.

Re:Silver Lining is tarnished

[4phun]

Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed.

But who will reimburse the consumers for the damages we suffer from having these devices temporarily off the market, if the decision is later reversed?

Be more realistic. The chances at very good that the injunction will be upheld permanently, they generally are when they each this stage.
The question should be who bares the responsibility for selling you a banned product that you will not be able to get parts for if it is broken?
The Koreans or Google?

Has anyone else noticed that Samsung's culture's actions mirror the lovable little scoundrels, the Fringy, in Star Wars:Underworld?

Re:So, before you start developing a new product .

[Prof.Phreak]

having a lawyer *involved* in product development from an early stage makes sense ---said a geeky lawyer.

Hope you realize that most innovative technologies of the last few decades started in a garage... you're saying that a tiny startup must choose lawyers over say rent or servers...

How would they be reasonable?

[Kupfernigk]

In fact patents belong in a world with a far smaller population. When there were lots of small nations with small educated populations, patents made some kind of sense. A patent holder affected at most a few million individuals in one country. But in a world in which the lucky first person to register an invention gets everything - that is ludicrous. It raises the bar of competitiveness to a degree that only the very well funded in countries with global reach are able to obtain any IP.

Patents on the crank and the negative to positive process held up engine development and photography, respectively, for years in the UK. In both cases it was merely a case of who was first to file. It is an excessive first mover advantage.

Some Germans don't

[Kupfernigk]

I'm just commenting on three or four German companies I worked with. I can't speak for all Germans.

Incidentally, the latest bottom-end Kia, the Picanto, very cheekily borrows a lot of design cues from BMW: even the grille looks more than a little BMW-like. But I don't like recent BMWs because they seem to be ripping off some 50s and 60s Citroen design elements. Once upon a time passing off was about Chinese handbags with linked CC emblems, or visual copies of Seamasters that lost an hour a day. Now it is about the shape of corners or a telephone icon. Effectively, the old legal principle of "de minimus non curat lex" perhaps seems to have less weight in Koh's court than it does in Posner's.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[catmistake]

would remove Safari if it was possible, much like pretty much everyone I know with a Windows machine would dump I.E. in a second if that were possible

Oh, it's really tricky... but it can be done with these secret, undocumented and 1337 instructions:

1) Drag Safari to the Trash
2) enter Admin password when prompted
3) empty the Trash

And I'd like to add another step for you personally, just to play it safe

4) when you don't know WTF you're talking about, STFU

I would have more sympathy for Google..l

[rabtech]

I'd have more sympathy for Google if they weren't continuing the practice of suing over FRAND standards-essential patents.

Motorola (and now Google) have asserted that even though Qualcomm pays a license fee for Motorola's FRAND patents that they have the right to retroactively revoke that license for chips Apple buys and force Apple to pay a higher royalty directly. It's a terrible and underhanded way to do business and if the courts let them get away with it no one is safe, not even if you buy technology from another vendor who has licensed the patents in question because the patent holder will be able to dictate terms to that vendor that YOU are no longer a valid customer, then come after you... All after you already shipped devices, putting you on the hook for back royalties!

Motorola is also articulating a theory that FRAND now means a percentage of the sales price of devices which is insane. Numbers like 2% of the iPhone retail price or Xbox retail price. It has never been used this way in the past, and seems to be an attempt to stifle competition.

The Samsung case is a more straightforward one of Samsung retaliating against Apple by using FRAND patents, in violation of the standards and their previous agreements. Now whether Apple should have sued them in the first place I don't know... They have been copying Apple's designs and I guess Apple feels like they stabbed them in the back by using their manufacturing knowledge to help their mobile division get a head start... But all of that may have been perfectly legal which would make Apple's lawsuits sour grapes. What I don't understand is that Apple seems to represent more revenue as a customer than Samsung gets as a competitor and these lawsuits seem to be pushing them to use other vendors so why continue them? If I were Samsung management I'd push hard for a quick settlement.

The other side to this coin, and one I think Google is testing with the Nexus Q, is that an adverse ITC ruling can stop you dead because it prohibits imports. The second is that if China experiences any political upheavals or major natural disasters, you are well and truly SOL because you have no backup facilities or alternate vendors. Personally, I'd be uncomfortable with that and I would require at least some percentage (say 10%) of my product must be manufactured entirely in a first-world country or possibly even my home turf so I would have a favorable political climate.

For Apple, get visas, bring some of those engineers/managers to the states, and partner with Foxconn to setup a manufacturing company here. Yes, those units will be slightly more expensive, but it would give me a base of talent I could scale up if the SHTF and not leave me entirely unable to ship product for years if there is a military coup or something in China.

Re:Um, No

[shutdown -p now]

It would be the beginning of companies being forced to designed around Apple's patents to make phones that look different

Galaxy Nexus already looks much different from iPhone. It's larger, its back is soft touch plastic with texture, and the whole phone is curved (yes, including the screen). It also has "Google" and "Samsung" labels prominently featured on the back. Even a blind person could distinguish the two devices by shape alone.

and function differently

For starters, "function differently" in this case is about things that are rather obvious - in case you haven't noticed, the patents in question are BS like "slide to unlock" and "enable voice input when textbox is focused". What more, Google has already been trying to dodge that, which is why in ICS the slide to unlock gesture no longer has a specific direction of swipe (which was Apple's complaint in the original patent case), but instead you have to drag a button out of the circle. Ironically, I recall people like you saying that Apple did Google a favor here since they forced them to invent a better way of unlocking with a touch gesture than what iOS uses; now, apparently, it's still not good enough for Apple. Of course, the idea that you can patent this in the first place is such obvious bullshit that I don't even see the point in nitpicking.

You think....?

[adumonit]

Wait till they patent their best selling product... Litigation Then you'll know iHell !

Re:Um, No

[duden]

Fundamentally I don't believe Apple's issue is if there is a button on the front of the phone or not. Think back to the presentation of the iPhone in 2007 and how this leapfrogged any other mobile device on the market. Apple's frustration with Android is that it "shamelessly copies" the core concepts and user interface that they introduced when re-inventing the mobile phone. This is the achievement that they are defending. They have seen once too many how, a couple of decades ago, a competitor started taking their Mac OS UI concepts and almost killed their revenue streams.

I'm personally impressed with the pace in which Google has managed to build an OS that catch up with this innovation. It proves they have a tremendous development team behind Android. I am also very sceptical around the current patent system and the way it can prevent small, innovative and independent new players (as apple / google once was) from competing in the market, not to mention the wider macro-economic effects it has preventing developing countries catching up with the industrialised world.

Having said all this, at the end of the day it should be clear to all that Apple is the breakthrough innovator in the mobile phone business and as long as the patent system is as it is then Apple needs to protect itself / shareholders where these (patented) innovations are being infringed.

Might I add that the Nokia Windows Mobile phones are bringing a new and fresh UI which clearly brings innovation to the market demonstrating that there are clearly more than one way to build a great mobile UI. I will leave that as a thought to anyone believing that Google did not copy the iPhone UI and as a thought for the hard working, brilliant engineers at Google: try to 'think different' - it matters.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[Lord_Jeremy]

Personally I've found the Mac OS X versions of Chrome and Firefox to be inferior to Safari. On the other hand, Safari for Windows is slow and crappy. To each their own...

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

In certain, stricter definitions of capitalism as a formalized economic system, you're right. But fundamentally, capitalism has been in use for much, much longer than that. A quick look at the wiki notes, "[since] the second millennium BC". I'd have guessed even longer. Probably since we first stopped living as small, nomadic tribes.

You're right that we're all colored by where and when we were raised. That includes me. But rational opinions are rational opinions, and what we do know is that virtually all of human progress as we think of it has happened under some form capitalism, where the means of production are (mostly) privately owned and individuals are meant to profit.

I suppose this is where more hyperbolic arguments would try to equate "profit" with "evil". I've never seen any logical reason to do that. What I will say, is that anywhere there's any pressure to compete, there will always be someone with some compulsion to either cheat or change the system for their benefit. Capitalism only works when we make sure that doesn't happen.

Otherwise you get elemental perversions in the system, like the patent system in the US. That's bad for everyone.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[stewbacca]

I use Safari, as do most of my coworkers (roughly 5000 Macs). I also use Firefox for some stuff and I use Chrome (on my Win7 partition). Why do you think it isn't possible to remove Safari? Applications>Safari...drag to trash, empty trash...done.

Here's a hint...most people don't care what web browser they use until it can't do something they need. Most Mac users use Safari because it's what's on the machine and it mostly works. There's no need for 90% of Mac users to use Firefox or Chrome...and by no need I mean hey don't know (or care) what web browser they are using.

the new yorker article doesnt say 'license'

[decora]

either. it may 'seem logical' that Apple had a license from Xerox, but then i would expect that the New Yorker article would have said "Xerox's case was thrown out because Apple had licensed the works they used". It would seem it should say that, but it does not.

i cannot go on what 'seems logical', i must go on some actual facts, like an actual journalistic book or article that discusses the exact nature of Apples "agreement" with Xerox, and whether or not 'license' was in there.

Not to be pedantic, but there is a huge amount of 'understanding' in the tech world, the patent system a sort of unspoken beast that everyone is ashamed to admit exists, because it lashes out at the most inappropriate and inopportune moments, in that they would seem to highlight the hypocritical nature of most of the intellectual property law field in the current intellectual tech environment. Polite well spoken mean of good means discuss politely the evisceration of billions of dollars from each other and various small companies, not based on the principles of a fair legal concept of ownership, but based on mutually assured destruction based on war-chest portfolios. It has nothing to do with innovation, property rights, etc.

The fact that Microsoft essentially 'stole' windows from Apple threatens the entire facade of propriety surrounding the system... and is probably why Microsoft did not get seriously into the patent game until the 1990s.... they actually had something called "shame" ....

The argument to support Apple here is that Apple properly licensed the intellectual property of Xerox, and Xerox was fairly compensated. But that argument is not proven. So it might seem a small matter of linguistic propriety, but a link to a New Yorker article, as good as the New Yorker is, does not solve the question, because the New Yorker does not even address it. But the long held assumption in the 'geek o sphere' is that Apple did to Xerox what Microsoft did to Apple - and Jobs & the Mac Press Core did not apparently spend much time fighting against this idea after Apple lost the look-and-feel suit in the 80s... i have never even heard this 'Apple licensed the GUI fair and square' argument until a few years ago... not that i am an expert, but i spent a fair amount of time reading about tech trends, apple, osx, patents, etc for many of the past decade+.

The notion of an 'agreement' is not the same idea as a proper and legal license hammered out by two partners acting in good faith.

But even if Apple did 'properly license' Xerox intellectual property - there is much more that Apple did that proves their essentially predatory nature... most notably the period in the late 80s when the Free Software Foundation essentially boycotted Apple after it sued HP - claiming that apple "owned" the "copyright" of overlapping windows in a GUI, an absolutely mind boggling claim.

If patents no longer promote progress...

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

... can they be ruled unconstitutional? (Somebody corrrect my logical fallacy;)

Re:If patents no longer promote progress...

[cduffy]

If patents no longer promote progress... can they be ruled unconstitutional?

There was hope for that, but the holding in Eldred v. Ashcroft pretty much ruled it out. The effect of that holding (made in the light of a great deal of evidence to the effect that the CTEA did not promote "progress and the useful arts" in any meaningful way) was to find that the clause in question (though this case applied to copyright) was effectively meaningless preamble, not binding on Congress's lawmaking ability.

Sorry no

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Inter-tribe relations in native American tribes were capitalistic. They traded and even had various things that took the function of money, and this was partially used within a tribe as well (and if capitalism failed they "raided" each other. Which means kill all the men, kill all the women they didn't want to rape and kidnap, kidnap the rest of the women and steal the surviving children - gotta love these non-capitalistic systems of negotiation). Both the Mayan and the Inca empires were capitalistic states (doesn't mean it necessarily controlled them, but they had a money system). Mayans appear to have had a central bank (even if it was religious in nature, which the west never did, but it can probably work just as well or maybe even better (Europe was long plagued by the effects of state control of central banks - if being religious in nature allowed the central bank to be independent that would probably have been an advantage))

Besides, if you want to see how a tribe functions for yourself, visit one in Central Africa. I think you'll agree that it's a much worse system than capitalism. And yes, inter-tribe relations in central africa are also mostly based on money exchange.

Re:Sorry no

[NickFortune]

Inter-tribe relations in native American tribes were capitalistic. They traded and even had various things that took the function of money, and this was partially used within a tribe as well

Mmmm... I think you're conflating "trade" and "capitalism" there. I'll grant trade as a fundamental of human behavior. However, if we define any social grouping that conducted trade or used a form of currency as "capitalist" then we have a definition that encompasses everything from Stalin's USSR to England under William the Conqueror.

That's admirably consistent, but not especially useful, you know?

Besides, if you want to see how a tribe functions for yourself, visit one in Central Africa. I think you'll agree that it's a much worse system than capitalism. And yes, inter-tribe relations in central africa are also mostly based on money exchange.

So hang on. By your earlier argument, they use money relations therefore they are capitalist. So your point would seem to be that capitalism is much better than capitalism.

Perhaps there's some inconsistency in your use of the term after all.

In any case, the GP's point wasn't that tribal society was better than capitalism (whether they were capitalists or not) but simply that it only seems natural to people because they've grown up with the system.

Re:Sorry no

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So at what point are you capitalist ? What does it require ? Native Americans did trade goods for "money", even if it was not paper money like we have.

Communism is what existed within a tribe : a central organ (the guy with the biggest axe) "decides what happens" (through what we'd call murder). A capitalism"-lite" existed between neighbouring tribes when not at war.

Re:Sorry no

[NickFortune]

So at what point are you capitalist ? What does it require ? Native Americans did trade goods for "money", even if it was not paper money like we have.

That's a reasonable question. The I believe the standard definition is that a capitalist system is one where the means of production of goods and the resources needed to do so are vested entirely in the hands of private individuals rather than in the state

Your Native American tribes would fail that test in so far as the woodlands and buffalo herds were not privately owned.

Now if they'd had to buy a hunting permit from the owner of the woods, or pay a surcharge for each buffalo killed, that would have been a capitalist system.

Communism is what existed within a tribe : a central organ (the guy with the biggest axe) "decides what happens" (through what we'd call murder).

I believe the generally accepted term for that system is "totalitarianism". It's not entirely incompatible with communism, but neither is it the defining feature of the system.

Totalitarianism isn't entirely incompatible with capitalism either, for that matter.

Re:Sorry no

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Your Native American tribes would fail that test in so far as the woodlands and buffalo herds were not privately owned.

I don't think that would be true. You could easily defend the position that the leader of the tribe that has won the last war over the buffalo herd/woodland privately owns it. It was certainly true that they didn't share (unless the woodland was so big they didn't detect eachother). And I'm sure at least a few tribes had traded "hunting rights", especially when the tribes were very small, which often happened. I remember that buffalo herds were often part of "peace treaties", although I don't quite remember what exactly the conditions were. The treaties could be thought of as transactions, although they never lasted as tribes grew.

And it strikes me as true that on a small scale the differences between systems is not very large. Totalitarianism, communism, maybe even very limited forms of capitalism would look very similar if not the same within a tribe.

Re:Sorry no

[NickFortune]

Your Native American tribes would fail that test in so far as the woodlands and buffalo herds were not privately owned.

I don't think that would be true. You could easily defend the position that the leader of the tribe that has won the last war over the buffalo herd/woodland privately owns it.

Mmmm... A more conventional analysis would be to say that the tribe controls the territory as a result of the last war. If the tribe has a single totalitarian ruler (and I don't think that's a given) then you can argue that the resource is perhaps vested in him personally, but it's a stretch to cite that as evidence of capitalism. Otherwise you could argue that Josef Stalin becomes one of the 20th Century's most prominent capitalists, and that doesn't seem right.

In any case, the tribal chief didn't charge his own tribesmen for permission to use the territory. And "capitalist on an inter-tribal level" is just another way of saying "trade".

And it strikes me as true that on a small scale the differences between systems is not very large. Totalitarianism, communism, maybe even very limited forms of capitalism would look very similar if not the same within a tribe.

I think that some economic and/or political models don't work very well at the tribal scale. Probably the best fit for most tribal structures would be socialism, with some individual ownership but with many resources held in common by the tribe, an accepted duty of care by the tribe for its members. Obviously a sweeping generalisation, but I think it fits the general case better than most.

But yeah, it's possible to fit analyse any facet of the world purely in terms of one theory or philosophy if someone is inclined to make the effort. Really it's about how well the notion fits overall.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[Cinder6]

Not only that, but you can't change the default browser on iOS (which, as an iOS user, sucks, though I'd rather change the default mail client). At least iOS 6 brings tab syncing with Mountain Lion.

The "Free Market"...

[emaname]

...at it's best.

All you need to know about Judge Koh

[Taco Cowboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh

If you ever wonder why Judge Koh did what she did, click the above link

This Judge Koh was one of those patent-rats, ahem, patent lawyers, before she became a judge

And ...

Most important of all, she was recommended by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both of them are receiving large "donations" from MAFIAA

And who else appointed Judge Koh to the Northern California District Court?

Barack Obama, of course !!

Patent / Copyright Reform, NOW !!

[Taco Cowboy]

Enough of all this !!

It's not about Samsung, or Apple, of Microsoft, or Google, or whatnots !!

This Patent war / Copyright MAFIAA thing, if not stopped, will have a very drastic effect on our society for a VEEEERRRRRYYYY LOOOOONNNNNNG time to come !

Not only innovations will be stifled, the marketplace will become monopolistic, and the customers will be forced to put up with maddening taxes, in term of "patent fees", "copyright royalties", etc

The politicians are on the take, we should NOT let them mess with this anymore

Even judges are getting on the bandwagon - this Judge Lucy Koh is a prime example of what can go wrong - She was a patent-lawyer before she was appointed to be a judge, and I will not even be surprised that she was on the payroll of a certain corporation

It's time to revolt !
 

Re:Patent / Copyright Reform, NOW !!

[macs4all]

this Judge Lucy Koh is a prime example of what can go wrong - She was a patent-lawyer before she was appointed to be a judge

So, it's really cool that Judge Posner is a coder, and thus understood the technology and terms-of-art behind his most recent celebrated case; but when Judge Koh was a patent attorney, and thus understands, at a minimum, what should be patentable and not, she is immediately considered to be "on the take"???

Re:Patent / Copyright Reform, NOW !!

[Taco Cowboy]

Haven't you heard of "When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" ?

Judge Koh, herself being a patent lawyer before becoming a judge, will naturally have that tendency to side with the side who sue with the side who claimed that their patent being infringed upon

That Judge Koh should have excused herself on cases involving patent in the first case

Re:Patent / Copyright Reform, NOW !!

[mbkennel]

"on the take" implies bribery, but.....

If you're a patent attorney, the applicable size of your market and your quantity of billable hours, as well as the urgency for your services, scales positively with a legal regime in which

a) broad patents for minor variations are easily granted

and

b) the potency of the threat of patent litigation is very high

If you make your living in that arena, are you likely to make legal decisions (anything important decided by a judge intriniscally touches on (a) and (b)) which would have profoundly reduced your income or made your job, which you spend decades of hard work preparing for, redundant?

Judge Posner has a decent understanding of software production, but only as an amateur dilettante. He wasn't ever a programmer who lost his job because his employers folded because of patent problems---roughly the parallel opposite to Koh.

Re:Patent / Copyright Reform, NOW !!

[macs4all]

That Judge Koh should have excused herself on cases involving patent in the first case

Why? Did she hold stock from either corporation? Was she a member of either corporation's Board?

Again, I ask: Why was it cool that J. Posner was a coder, but UNcool that J. Koh understood patent law?

Re:So, before you start developing a new product .

[Neil_Brown]

you're saying that a tiny startup must choose lawyers over say rent or servers...

Not at all — more a "know your market" approach.

The volume of law and regulation means that it makes sense to involve a lawyer at an early stage, hence budgeting in to the development. I'm all for garage/shed innovation, and it's a real shame when someone's great idea, which they've invested their time, effort, and, often, money, into gets kyboshed because of a legal issue. Sometimes that's justified — some laws do make sense (at least, to me), and their existence serves the public good — and sometimes it's a travesty. It's also a shame when a product gets close to market and yet falls down because changing it would be too costly, when with some guidance early on in the process, it would be easy to make the product compliant / non-infringing / whatever. Rushing out to hire a lawyer whenever you have an idea is far from what I'm suggesting, but I *am* saying that, given that there are laws and regulations and patents and other such things, understanding the climate in which you are operating before spending all your money trying to launch something which is going to run into problem after problems seems prudent.

Is this ideal? Of course not! However, given what we have, I'd see it as being pragmatic — knowing your market. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion, and we *certainly* would not need to have lawyers.

Re:Dunno....

[busyqth]

Apple will be screwed if Google manages to snag the patent for Android's notification system. Karma is a b****.

Actually, karma is just an integer in a database.

Re:Nitpick

[ssfsx17]

People sure try to do things like capitalism, feudalism, warlordism, etc. all the time. For a quick example of feudalism: the mafia. The only question is what's easier to accomplish within the constraints of the current situation and the current capabilities of technology.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[macs4all]

But nobody uses the shit sandwich that is Safari. I literally know not a single OSX user that doesn't use Chrome or Firefox as their main browser and would remove Safari if it was possible, much like pretty much everyone I know with a Windows machine would dump I.E. in a second if that were possible.

You know what? I have used Safari pretty much exclusively since it came out. It's a DAMNED good browser on OS X. However, on Windows, it sucked. Tried it. Hated it. Never went back.

However, I recently had to install Safari on my Win 7 work-provided laptop to run an iOS emulator. I have to say, Safari for Windows is NOTHING like when it first came out back in 2008(?) It simply ROCKS! It is WAAAAY faster than IE, and even a little faster than FireFox, and the pop-up blocker is superior to both. So much so that it has pretty much instantly become my WINDOWS browser-of-choice.

So, if you tried Safari on Windows, I suggest you try again.

Re:i propose iOS protest day, block safari

[macs4all]

My site already pops up a "Why you shouldn't use Mac" div when you surf there with an OSX or iOS device.

THAT scared, huh?

What an infantile jerkwad. Why do you fucking even care?

American beer is good finally

[mbkennel]

Quantities matter.

Nearly every pub I've been to in the USA in the last 10-15 years has had a significant selection of good beer on par with European quality. Every supermarket has good beer, along with cheap macrobrews. You have to work pretty hard to find a "dive bar" which has only generic 'macrobrews' from BudMilCoors and nothing decent. It's a huge change from 25 years ago. Maybe not in rural Oklahoma, but in every moderately sized city, certainly.

It's not at all like Tesla vs internal combustion automobiles (you'd have to search for hours to find one in a city) more like Japanese vs American---you can find a Japanese car in every parking lot.

Re:American beer is good finally

[Grishnakh]

I'm not disagreeing that you can't get good American beer. I'll also agree that the situation is entirely different than it was 25 years ago, when all the nice microbrews weren't available. However, as you said, quantities matter, and these microbrews are still just that: small volume, and the shitbrews are still much higher selling by far.

I don't think it's like Japanese vs. American either; it's getting closer to that, I'll grant you, but it's more like $100k cars vs. everything else; I see $100k+ cars fairly frequently in my city (Phoenix, esp. in the Scottsdale area); Lamborghinis, Aston Martins, Ferraris, Maseratis, Rollses, even a Tesla or two, etc. But the $15-30k cars are still by far the most common, of newer cars I see driving around.

So I don't think it's unfair to continue to make fun of "American beers". Most American beer, by volume, is crap, and most Americans like crappy beer (which is why they can sell that volume of it). When the shitbrews are out of business or have changed so they're not so horrible, then we can say "American beers" shouldn't be bashed any more, but it hasn't happened yet. It might one day; after all, whatever you may think of Ford cars today, they really aren't like the Pintos any more.