Slashdot Mirror


Apple Loses Bid For Emergency Ban On HTC Phone Imports

New submitter tukang writes "The US International Trade Commission has rejected an emergency request by Apple to detain some HTC phones (including the One X and EVO 4G) at the border while the agency investigates Apple's claims of patent infringement. In May, HTC's phone shipment was held up at the border and was only allowed to pass after U.S. Customs and Border Protection received assurances that HTC worked around Apple patents, a claim which Apple disputes."

74 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Only a little evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple isn't behaving well but they still have a long way to go to reach Microsoft levels of evil.

    I mean, MS included a BROWSER in their OS. ...and they didn't even give you a way to uninstall it! Now THAT is pure evil.

    1. Re:Only a little evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that what Apple is doing ?

    2. Re:Only a little evil by TheoGB · · Score: 2

      Yeah, a browser. I mean, that's really beyond that pale. Who on earth needs a browser these days? (Now if you'd said a shoddy, substandard, open-to-attacks browser, that might have read a bit better.)

    3. Re:Only a little evil by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!

      Fully prepared to be accused of being an "Apple hater" for not buying the Apple agenda, and being modded down by some people who probably are making use of not-so-above-board mod points. But hey, karma to burn.

    4. Re:Only a little evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd have to be in a coma to be that dumb, shillboy.

    5. Re:Only a little evil by TheoGB · · Score: 4, Funny

      On Slashdot I always thought that slamming Apple was fine so long as you made it clear that you were a dyed-in-the-wool *nix fanboy. I'm not sure you managed to put that across, though. Damn...

    6. Re:Only a little evil by Flipao · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MS including a browser with the OS that had no regard for existing standards set the web back some 5-6 years. If it hadn't been for Opera, Firefox and later Chrome and Safari (on mobile) web developers all over the world might have hanged themselves by now. Yeah, they were evil then, they are evil now.

    7. Re:Only a little evil by pnot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I mean, MS included a BROWSER in their OS. ...and they didn't even give you a way to uninstall it! Now THAT is pure evil.

      Absolutely! Good thing I can uninstall Safari from my Mac, easy as -- wait, what's this?

      ”Safari.app” can’t be modified or deleted because it’s required by Mac OS X.

      The article does mention that you can rm -rf it from the command line, but cautions that this "could result in abnormal system behavior or improper functionality".

    8. Re:Only a little evil by ajo_arctus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't the way they 'included a browser', it was they way they attempted (and succeeded) to entirely destroy a competitive market by using the thermo-nuclear option of abusing their Windows monopoly.

      And it wasn't the way they did it with the web browser, it was the way they did it time and time again (Dr-Dos, OS/2, DiskStacker, WordPerfect, Netware, Netscape, DirectX) and certainly more than that. They even tried to create a proprietary internet (and thankfully failed).

      They don't seem so evil these days, but I'm sure they would if they could. Or maybe Ballmer's just a big softy compared to Gates? I don't know, I suspect that the competition in mobile and from Google has really dented their ability to be really evil.

    9. Re:Only a little evil by Dynetrekk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them.

      I've got mod points, but I'll rather point out that on my mac I often compile and install software that has never been approved by anyone. Mac OS X is unix, so ./configure; make works rather often. I'm not a "fanboi" but I'm not too impressed by claims not supported by facts, either.

    10. Re:Only a little evil by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think that pushing a piece of software that doesn't follow some arbitrary standard is evil, you have a perspective warped beyond imagining.

    11. Re:Only a little evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but if you buy one of Apple's pocket-sized computers you need to constantly fight with the manufacturer to install any Unapproved Software on it.

    12. Re:Only a little evil by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Pushing software isn't evil. Abusing a monopoly position to eradicate the competition is.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    13. Re:Only a little evil by Entrope · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not an auto fanatic, so inform me if I have missed something: Has Porsche been using software and look-and-feel patents of questionable validity and worth to take their competitors' products off the market?

    14. Re:Only a little evil by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Give it time, while apple's future is hard to predict the general trend seems to be going to more lock down the better, hell with the next os x having developer signing they are paving the way for the future lock down. All they'd have to do is change a setting to refuse to run things not signed by them and the transformation would be complete.

    15. Re:Only a little evil by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wrote a long screed about "teh Apple is evulz!". Then I took a breath, deleted it, and decided to say only this: If you are a user that prefers to compile and install your own software in a manner not explicitly approved by Apple (like a developer's licence), you should just keep your options open. At this point in the game, the OS X is more likely to change to resemble iOS than the other way around. Might not happen, but options are always good.

    16. Re:Only a little evil by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      Surely this was meant as humor, no?

      I hate IE and I understand that people hate(d) Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop and the browser just made it worse, but really people, do we really think that's such an evil thing? Why don't we get so upset about Notepad, Regedit, Paint, etc? They're equally crap. Why was IE singled out from all the other non OS features included with Windows? IE is just a feature shipped with the OS. Don't Apple ship Safari with OSX?

      If anything, shipping IE for free with the OS was (in the long run) a good thing (standards compliance aside), as it forced the competitors to be innovative and have made browsers much better (in my opinion).

      Just curious - if IE was not included with the OS, how would you get a competitor's browser? Sure it's not an unsolvable problem, but I know when I install Windows on a friends machine, the first thing I do is fire up IE and download a decent browser. It's good for that if nothing else.

      I think a good car analogy is: Manufacturers of cars ship radios in their cars - can you believe that? And they are not super simple for the end user to remove, some can't even be replaced with 3rd party ones (think of the big in console jobs) as they're integrated into the car's computer systems... Never heard anyone complain about that.

      But sarcasm aside, I never really understood why MS copped such flack for including IE, it seems perfectly fair in my mind, don't like it? Don't use it. Rather simple really... Sure it made it harder for the competition, but heck, don't enter that space if you're not willing to compete against (crappy) IE. I just wish they'd made it standards compliant.

      (bye bye Karma.....) But before you do blast my Karma away, I'm not an MS fan, I haven't used their OS on my machines for well over 10 years, but I never really understood why shipping a feature for free with an OS was so evil.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    17. Re:Only a little evil by humanrev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Netscape

      I'm sorry but I have to call you out there. The browser war involving IE vs Netscape was partially won by IE being bundled with Windows making the downloading of Netscape redundant. I'd wager another big reason for Netscape losing the war simply was because it was SHIT compared to IE 4. I distinctly remember switcing from Netscape to IE 4 and then IE 5 because IE was, believe it or not, fast and snappy whereas Netscape had degraded into a bloated, crappy shell of its former self. Making the effort to download a browser which was worse than that supplied by the operating system didn't make sense. It was only until better browsers like Firefox came on the scene that IE finally lost its dominance - proving that people WILL use something superior to a bundled application if it's better.

      --
      Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
    18. Re:Only a little evil by drdaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which you were fully aware of when you bought it.

    19. Re:Only a little evil by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      Apple's products can get accelerations of 10m/s^2, in fact, a lot should. Microsoft ones too, anyway

    20. Re:Only a little evil by i_ate_god · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is irrelevant if apple just goes and forcibly blocks all its competitors from even importing their own products.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    21. Re:Only a little evil by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      And to think, one Apple product was the Newton...

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    22. Re:Only a little evil by Xphile101361 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, hey, less logic. This is a apple hater vs mac fanboi discussion.

    23. Re:Only a little evil by gman003 · · Score: 2

      Weird, Windows includes an IE library other apps can use, but updating IE doesn't require you to reboot anything. And if Microsoft can manage that simple task, so can Apple.

      Hell, I've seen an update for iTunes that made me restart. That is six different types of retarded right there.

    24. Re:Only a little evil by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Quick, we must prevent Google abusing their minisule share of the OS market

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    25. Re:Only a little evil by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Damn, /. ate my </sarcasm> tag.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    26. Re:Only a little evil by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!

       

      It seems, lately, that the greatest innovation to come from Apple is how to creatively use the broken patent system to thwart competition.

    27. Re:Only a little evil by cygnwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, Galaxy Nexus has an injunction, they're trying to get a block on HTC One and EVO 4g, and not mentioned here but they're also going after the Galaxy S III While that's only two manufacturers really, it is for of the best android handsets available right now. While it's not a blanket 'all' it certainly shows a pattern....

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    28. Re:Only a little evil by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good grief, it hasn't been that long. The antitrust case didn't start over IE, it started because Microsoft threatened to withhold OEM pricing from any manufacturer who chose to install Netscape on new computers. This was after they had already been nailed for doing the same damned thing over Dr. DOS a few years before.

      The abuse of monopoly was over OEM pricing. Because OEM copies of Windows are so significantly discounted, it was a clear case of a use of monopoly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Only a little evil by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they are just trying to sue their way into market monopoly, with mixed results...

    30. Re:Only a little evil by fredprado · · Score: 2

      But if a third party makes parts for custom updates of your Ford, guess what: you can use them! Even if that third party is Honda or Toyota by some weird motive.

    31. Re:Only a little evil by andydread · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your moronic analogy is well...moronic.

      The correct analogy is Ford and Chevy blocking you from using aftermarket compatible parts that were not purchased at the dealer. They don't do that. Apple on the other hand.......

      Another analogy would be ford and chevy forcing you to only purchase gas from the dealer.

      No one is trying to install incompatible android apps on apple platform as your analogy suggests. What they are trying to do is install aftermarket compatible apps on the apple platform that does not come from the Apple dealer. get it?

    32. Re:Only a little evil by uniquename72 · · Score: 2

      If you have an older Ford/Chevy, 99% of the aftermarket parts you buy are not built by Ford/Chevy (unless you're getting them from a junkyard). Even with newer cars, aftermarket parts tend to be cheaper and work just as well, or are more expensive but provide superior performance.

      IOW, car analogies rarely work, and yours is no exception.

    33. Re:Only a little evil by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      My Nexus one and Viewsonic gTablet both allowed me to replace the OS without 'rooting' the phone. Viewsonic even put links to XDA on their support page. Android does nothing to prevent you from having root access to your phone. Samsung, HTC, Motorolla, etc. lock the device. Google even help people with the replacement of their OS distribution.

      Locking the owner of a device out of their own device is evil. It is evil whether it is Samsung, HTC, Motorolla, or, yes, Apple. Today, I can buy a Android device that allows me to completely replace the OS without breaking any of it's protections. I cannot do that with any iOS device

    34. Re:Only a little evil by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Like so many of their patents, it's about keeping the device recognizable.

      You'd have a point if slide to unlock is a design patent, but it's not. It's a regular patent, which is supposed to be given for innovative things.

      And frankly, I don't see the problem - if you can't come up with something equally functional that isn't the slider with the shining text, you're trying to copy their design.

      Google has already changed slide to unlock they used in Android 2.x to the new model in ICS, where you need to drag a thingy out of the circle (in any direction); no shiny text involved. That's what Galaxy Nexus uses. Apparently, that's still not good enough for Apple.

      Slide to unlock is the first thing you encounter. It's one of the identifying features of the product

      By your logic, since the first thing you encounter in a car is a steering wheel, whoever put it there first could have got a design patent on it as "one of the identifying features" of his product. This is an idiotic argument. Identifying features - if you want for them to actually be identifying - should be sufficiently different and notable. Slide to unlock isn't.

    35. Re:Only a little evil by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Good. So that only leaves two more idiotic patents Apple uses to ban competing devices, such as auto-highlighting the phone numbers on web pages such that they invoke the dialer app when tapped (what they used to go after HTC), or the super-innovative idea of voice search being applicable to several sources of items across the system (the primary patent in Nexus case).

      By the way, slide-to-unlock is apparently still used by Apple in the case of Samsung Galaxy S3 (which they are also seeking to ban). Given that S3 has an unlock system that is even further removed from slide-to-unlock than Nexus (it doesn't even have a circle, it's just free swipe in any direction), all my original points still stand.

  2. sudden outbreak of common sense by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An emergency claim of patent infringement, surely calling it an "emergency" is taking the piss. Was someone's life or health in danger or just someone's bottom line.

    There should be some punishment for misusing patent law and the ITC/courts like this. Perhaps the court should ban the plaintiffs competing product for 6-12 months when an allegation is found to be false...

    But if that happened, Apple would just find another legal loophole to exploit I suppose.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      It's an emergency as these phones make the 4S look quite out of date. The features these phones 'infringe' on are also on most other Android phones, but I don't see them blocking the cheap ones.

    2. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Perhaps the court should ban the plaintiffs competing product for 6-12
      > months when an allegation is found to be false...

      I take these kinds of shenanigans as an admission that they don't have a product that they think can compete.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even when the cheap ones are functionally identical to the high end ones.

      Seriously... that phone right there, and the fact that Apple has never sued over it, makes it quite obvious that this has nothing to do with them trying to protect their intellectual property. It is functionally identical to the Galaxy SII that they threw a shitfit over and it came out a month before the SII... the front face and UI have the same basic design: the only real differences are that it's slightly thicker, it has a slightly slower processor, and the screen is a lower resolution and slightly smaller. The software at launch time was nearly identical (and *was* identical on the points Apple sued over).

      If this was *really* about their software patents, they would have sued over that one, too, but since you can get an Ace for $100 new without a contract ($225 at launch time), they didn't sue.

      btw -- if you don't do any gaming on your phone, that phone is quite adequate. The UI is zippy enough, has the same hardware-accelerated bling from a higher end phone, and you can buy it without a contract and not break the bank. I have one, and I am happy with it. There's no ICS update for it, but Gingerbread supports all the features I want out of a phone. :)

    4. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "It's an emergency as these phones make the 4S look quite out of date."

      The apple fanbois wouldn't care - they'd buy a week old turd if it had an apple logo stamped on it.

    5. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 2

      The point is that Apple only gets trigger-happy when the product is considered "as good as an iDevice" or better. They are trying to protect their premium image by trying to ban the better Android products while letting the shit ones through.

    6. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      Apple's new slogan is borrowed from Google, but with an additional line:
      Do no evil.
      Let the courts do it for you.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by drdaz · · Score: 2

      "It's an emergency as these phones make the 4S look quite out of date."

      The apple fanbois wouldn't care - they'd buy a week old turd if it had an apple logo stamped on it.

      (Score:5, Informative)

      Now that's just sad.

    8. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Don't worry , cupertino are just about waking up by now and once the hipsters have had their frothy decaf skinny latte mocha, found a comfortable organic peace beanbag to zone out on and synergized with their iPads I'm sure I'll get modded down.

    9. Re:sudden outbreak of common sense by demonbug · · Score: 2

      "It's an emergency as these phones make the 4S look quite out of date."

      The apple fanbois wouldn't care - they'd buy a week old turd if it had an apple logo stamped on it.

      (Score:5, Informative)

      Now that's just sad.

      No kidding. What half-witted mods don't realize that everybody already knows this. Hardly informative ;)

  3. When will it end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The patent covers a system to detect telephone numbers in e-mails so, when the number on the screen is tapped, they can be stored in directories or called without dialing."

    1. Re:When will it end? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

      Cool, you can now patent Regular Expressions? I need to get that one to detect words in E-Mails to that Patent Office ASAP.

    2. Re:When will it end? by Terry+Pearson · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://cdn.techpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/apple-slide-to-unlock.jpg

      Slide to unlock was their idea, they have a right to patent it.

      No they do not "have a right to patent it."

      They have the power to patent it under our current legal system, but patents were not meant for such trivial functionality. This whole "we have a right to patent intuitive design" crap needs to stop. It is not helping spur innovation when you give large companies the right to patent common sense design.

      If you want to patent a design on an advanced engine, fine. You want to patent an advanced chemical compound that cures something fine go ahead. But patents should be as limited in duration as they can be and the should only be allowed for complicated subject.

      Simple user interface ideas, curved corners, touch screens, and the like should not be patentable. And even if they are patented (because of stupid politics), it should be for a couple years tops.

  4. And this is why Apple sucks... by Xenx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand legitimate complaints about patent infringement. I can even almost understand some of the complaints Apple puts forth against Android devices. While I don't necessarily feel they should be winning the cases, I feel that they're at least operating within the system. My issue is with situations like this, where they're pressing for bans when the situation isn't even decided yet. They're just pressing to hurt the competitors as much as possible without actually having to prove foul play.

    1. Re:And this is why Apple sucks... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can understand legitimate complaints about patent infringement. I can even almost understand some of the complaints Apple puts forth against Android devices. While I don't necessarily feel they should be winning the cases, I feel that they're at least operating within the system. My issue is with situations like this, where they're pressing for bans when the situation isn't even decided yet. They're just pressing to hurt the competitors as much as possible without actually having to prove foul play.

      Pressing for bans is what everybody else does as well. Like Samsung, HTC, Motorola.

      I steal your car. Should I be allowed to drive it until I am convicted in a court? That would obviously be unfair towards you. But for example in the Apple vs. Samsung case, Apple got an injunction but if they lost the case in the end, they would have to pay damages. And they had to pay a bond so that it is guaranteed that the money for paying damages is there if needed.

    2. Re:And this is why Apple sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I say you stole my car. should you be allowed to drive the car I say is mine and you stole it until I prove myself right?
      That's closer to what this is about.

    3. Re:And this is why Apple sucks... by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually been in a situation where a guitar of mine was stolen in a burglary. I spotted my guitar in a second hand shop and was able to prove it was mine.

      But then hit a snag, the owner of the shop was able to say he bought the guitar in good faith, thus to get my guitar back i could compensate him by paying him for my own guitar or go to court and eventually get a judge to order him to return it to me. He wasn't allowed to sell it in the mean time so my stubbornness refusing to pay for my own guitar meant we both were out of pocket for a while.

      In the end the same people who sold him the guitar tried to sell him something else at which time he called the police and they were arrested some stolen property was recovered and the shop keeper gave me my guitar back with the hope of getting some compensation from the court for catching the thieves.

      I have to wonder if things would have played the way they did if I had caved and paid to get my guitar back.

  5. New Business Opportunity for Mexican Drung Gangs by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Smuggling phones!

    It will be like Prohibition, revisited. Rich folks will have the best phones at parties, like they used to have the best booze during Prohibition.

    Will Elliot Ness triumph over Al Capone this time . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  6. Antitrust Anyone by zippo01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one that wonders why no one is screaming antitrust? I guess Apple feels safe having the USPO fight their battles. I can see this ending badly for Apple down the road if they keep it up.

    1. Re:Antitrust Anyone by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are quite a few Apple dollars bouncing around Washington DC, even more since they became best of friends with the RIAA and MPAA. I wouldn't hold my breath for the government to save us from Apple any time soon.

    2. Re:Antitrust Anyone by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ..but ms+apple have covered their bases this time, can't accuse them of antitrust. MS,Apple and Nokia have thrown their dealings together, but the arrangements on licensing - and who sues who - are closed from the public(even if they're all publicly owned corporations, funny that).

      you see, this way MS doesn't sue their licensees for their other phones(that would be bordering on a no-no).
      this way Apple doesn't sue MS licensed products.
      this way Nokia+MS don't sue Apple. so effectively they're acting as one party, "by purely consequence".

      It's not a trust, it's just "licensing arrangements"(and backroom deals and handshakes, which again are not made public).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Antitrust Anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well my dollars sure won't be bouncing around on Apple. Not only don't I buy anything from them, but even if in the future they were the only company selling computer devices left on the world, I'd actually just give up on computers.

    4. Re:Antitrust Anyone by oztiks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On last thing there is no "sent from my iPhone/HTC/Samsung" defaulted in my email sigs like a pompous fuck.

    5. Re:Antitrust Anyone by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      Some real facts would've been nice, rather than a baseless implication.

      Google spent over $5 million in lobbying in Q1 2012 alone. Microsoft spent $1.72M, Facebook $0.65M.

      Where is Apple? They spent a mere $0.5M, one-tenth what Google did. Dell, Intel, Amazon, Oracle, IBM, HP all outspent Apple. And unlike Facebook, Google and Microsoft, Apple has no political action committee.

      It's true that Google lobbied for some worthwhile things like campaigning against SOPA, but if the amount of lobbying dollars are the measure by which you're predicting Apple wins in the court, you are way off base.

      In fact it's exactly the opposite:

      "I never once had a meeting with anybody representing Apple," said Jeff Miller, who served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee for eight years. "There have been other tech companies who chose not to engage in Washington, and for the most part that strategy did not benefit them."

      Then on page 2 of article:

      “There’s a difference between being quiet and uncooperative,” said a congressional aide who has dealt with Apple. “Part of the problem being behind the scenes is they have no identity. They have no corporate identity in this town because nobody knows them.”
      [...]
      And in the corridors of Congress, Apple has become a punching bag for lawmakers who understand the power of using a marquee name to reinforce their arguments about American companies dodging taxes, hiring overseas and mistreating foreign workers.

      If lobbying dollars make the courts see things their way, as you imply, Apple should be losing every court case on home soil.

  7. Re:These are *software* patents? by weetabeex · · Score: 3

    Hating to state the obvious, OSX is not based on Linux but on *BSD. They just happen to inherit the POSIX interface, which makes it simpler to have native Linux applications running on OSX than it would be otherwise.

  8. Re:These are *software* patents? by TheoGB · · Score: 2

    Ah! Totally different then. As you were...

  9. Re:These are *software* patents? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The big players in mobile all have their warchest of patents in place. Now they are stepping up the game; apparently it has become necessary to also have a warchest of ongoing lawsuits. Better sue the competition and have 5 cases running against them, then we have something to trade when they decide to sue us in turn.

    But they know this: all of this serves quite nicely to keep new players out of the market. If you can get an injunction against a certain product because it has rounded corners, then there's nothing you can't block... unless the competition similarly threatens to block your own products from the market.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  10. Re:This is by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Patents were never meant to be used to try to kill competition."

    No, they were meant to prevent any form of competition until the patent expired. Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started. Not sure whoever came up with that thought it through fully, but boy, have they been trying to justify it since!

  11. Re:Their definition of "emergency" differs from mi by pnot · · Score: 2

    Given the recent "1 million Android devices activated daily" statistic, I assume they're using the bathroom-related definition of "emergency"; that is to say, "we're crapping ourselves".

  12. Dear manufacturers: by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Try building your crap in the US. It takes a hell of a lot more effort (and actual evidence presented in a real live US court as opposed to a shadowy meeting with a "committee" of one guy) to have a domestically produced product impounded, than to convince the largely unregulated and capricious CBP to impound something ill-defined.

    Domestic fireworks: Okay. Foreign candies with toys inside: Banned.
    Domestic hardcore humiliation porn: Okay. Foreign Playboys: Banned.
    Domestic overpriced mislabeled antidepressants marketed at kids: Okay. Foreign 100% legit heart meds for 1/10th the price: Banned.

    I don't consider myself a bit "HuAH, Made in America" fan, but hey, nice to have someone employed capable of buying your crappy phones, eh?

  13. the govt didn't sue them for any of that stuff by decora · · Score: 2

    the US government had dozens and dozens of things they could have sued Microsoft for doing, which you mentioned, but what did they actually choose as charges?

    "Browser bundling". Not only can you not explain this to the ordinary person on the street ( or on a jury ) , it is actually kind of offensive to people with some experience in the technology industry. Honestly, why in the @#$ should they be banned from putting a browser on their machine - does that mean Ubuntu cant, or Apple cant?

    it was a royal foul up by the Clinton administration especially Janet Reno.

  14. Note that neither HTC nor Samsung by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    now claim that Apple's patents are invalid or that they do not infringe them.

    In Samsung's appeal against Apple's injunction against the Galaxy tablet: "Apple failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Galaxy Nexus caused "irreparable harm" in the form of market share lost to Samsung. The filing also suggests that such market share losses "must be substantial" and directly caused by the infringing feature, rather than the product as a whole."

    So Samsung does not argue that the patents are invalid or that it violated them but rather that it doesn't hurt Apple too much.

    "HTC believes that Apple's claims exceed the bounds of the original complaint. The statement by the ITC is seemingly not a denial of Apple for lack of propriety, but more a lack of information."

    So HTC believes that Apple is overreaching when it says that HTC has not re-engineered it's products enough to avoid Apple's patent. It does not deny the fact that it violated Apple's patent.

    It appears that Apple has a winning case when it comes to patents when they are no longer being challenged.

    1. Re:Note that neither HTC nor Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In legal matters it is quite common to separate a complex issue into parts, and argue them separately. E.g. "my client didn't break your window, but even if he did such a window costs only $X to repair, not the $Y you filed for". That is all that is going on here.

    2. Re:Note that neither HTC nor Samsung by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      So Samsung does not argue that the patents are invalid or that it violated them but rather that it doesn't hurt Apple too much.

      Because whether or not the patents are valid and being infringed by Samsung is already before the court, and not yet decided. The injunction against importation of Samsung's devices was ruled on that basis, so arguing one way or the other on that topic will not make any difference to the judge's decision.

  15. Re:These are *software* patents? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    Because you have your terminal configured to start the bash? You can also configer a different shell, like tcsh or csh or ksh ... so what is your point?

    On a Sun (Oracle) Solaris box the default shell is also bash or ksh, that has nothing to do with linux ort what ever.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  16. Re:This is by LordLucless · · Score: 2

    Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started.

    To be fair, it's also designed to encourage people to reveal how they accomplished what they've been doing since the Enlightenment started, so that the rest of society can benefit from their research. Of course, given how much research it takes to "invent" rounded corners, slide to unlock, and phone number regexes, I think Apple's patents have probably collectively saved civilization maybe an hour.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  17. 1984 by LodCrappo · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Apple famously claimed that "1984 won't be like '1984'", everyone assumed it was because they didn't want an Orwellian situation in the computer industry.
    As it turns out, Apple is totally into the idea. They just hadn't perfected the technology back then.

    --
    -Lod
  18. Re:Apple has really old prior art of its own. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Who cares about prior art on crap like "slide to unlock"? It shouldn't be patentable in the first place, prior art or not.