Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Forces Google To Degrade Android Features

Posted by timothy on from the advancing-the-arts-and-sciences dept.

walterbyrd writes "The latest in the ridiculous saga of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, which has resulted in Samsung phones and tablets being banned from sale in the U.S. is that Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse. Yes, the OTA update is designed to take away a feature, in an effort to convince the judge that the phones no longer violate Apple's patents. The feature in question? The ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet."

51 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Kill Patents by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Time to kill off the patent system. It has become absurd.

    1. Re:Kill Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Apple should be killed first. I have never seen a worse bully or a sorer loser. The tech industry needs to rid itself off this idiocy of a company once and for all. With all the money they have, they have the power now to completely annihilate innovation in the entire tech World. Things were better when they did not have that kind of money power; atleast then they had the hunger to build better products. Instead of quashing competition in the Courts and with the FTC.

    2. Re:Kill Patents by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

    3. Re:Kill Patents by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

      thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.

      Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).

      It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...

      what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.

      anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Kill Patents by jkrise · · Score: 3, Informative

      Firstly, this article is about the tussle between Apple and Samsung's Android offerings. I very clearly remember that Apple started the mindlessness vs Samsung first.

      Google was not directly sued by Apple, but the suits against Samsung and HTC were enough motivation for Google to acquire MMI and take some counter action.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    5. Re:Kill Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While you are absolutely right that what they are doing is legal, it doesn't mean that they aren't also bad actors. Getting a patent on "searching local and remote content with one search, OMG on a phone" is - well - a corruption of a broken system and it was disingenuous to even file for that patent. Then, actually using said patent in a blatant attempt to prevent competitive sales is almost the definition of a bad actor. (I imagine the "war room" sessions at Apple as they look through all of their patents and look at all competing devices to try to find something to sue over). While it is legal, it is also reprehensible. Just because it is legal doesn't mean they need to act in bad faith. However, I do believe that they will continue to do it (and so will others) until such time as the ludicrous rules allowing patents on software features are abolished.

    6. Re:Kill Patents by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not the patent LAW that's the problem. They law says that a patent is for something that's innovative and that would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art (in this case, of programming computers). The problem is that this is a bad patent that should never have been granted in the first place. The problem lies with the PATENT EXAMINERS who ignored that portion of the law or were so incompetent in the field of programming that they didn't realize that passing the same data to an internet search engine that you pass to the search function on the computer or phone and then aggregating the results is obvious. The judge is supposed to presume that a patent is valid once granted. But it seems that in the area of software patents these days, that's an increasingly invalid assumption. Patents do get invalidated, but not often enough and often not before considerable damage is done to parties accused of violating patents.

    7. Re:Kill Patents by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal.

      It is also legal to be greedy and avaricious, and in some cases, immoral and unethical. Though legal, such behavior still needs defending.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Kill Patents by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Apple sued first. The fact that Apple sued a different Android vendor than Motorola is immaterial, it was still a direct troll patent attack on Android.

      2010, Mar 02: Apple sues HTC over 10 patents and files an ITC complaint against HTC over 10 other patents.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:Kill Patents by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well said.

      Is that sarcasm? I can't even understand what the previous poster is trying to say. It seems like some sort of conspiracy theory involving Apple and MS, but the sentence structure is as torturous as the "logic".

    10. Re:Kill Patents by horza · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are plenty of morally wrong things people can do that are still legal. It's possible to harrass your neighbour in so many ways that just fall short of breaking the law, to the point they are suicidal, but if you don't do it then it doesn't mean somebody else will.

      Apple are a morally bankrupt company, that got lucky in launching a product at the right time technological advances made it possible, then are using their extensive cash piles to destroy innovation. Business suffers, consumers suffer, the only winner is Apple being able to flog off their inferior technology for a couple more years whilst they censor their rivals from the marketplace.

      Phillip.

      --
      Property for sale in Nice, France
    11. Re:Kill Patents by Teun · · Score: 4, Informative
      I see a couple of points re. the de-facto relation between MS and Apple that I agree with. These guys have a long standing truce, from around the time Apple helped MS make the Windows GUI and MS pledged to supply a MAC version of Office.

      To name the most obvious.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    12. Re:Kill Patents by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.

      Yeah, it's got tons of prior art, but so the hell what? Until Google pays its pound of flesh in money and time to have it invalidated, that doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. That's not fanboyism, that's just the way the system works.

      Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition. If that means obtaining a patent that will at some point later be ruled invalid and then using it to temporarily take your competitor's products off the market, or better yet, get them to disable certain feature of it, that conveys a certain impression to a lot of your competitor's existing and would-be customers: that 1) your competitor cannot be relied upon to deliver said features, and 2) that your competitor is basically creating knock-offs of your superior product.

      There is a really damn good chance that this patent will be invalidated at some point--I'm hoping it during this trial. But the damage is done, and even though the patent isn't valid, Apple will have won a marketing battle from it.

      The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.

      Even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow (fat chance...), the GP is also right that there will always be another company right behind them using the same practices to thwart its competition and get ahead. Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Apple doing this, what are you going to do about the 158 companies lined up right behind Apple to extract their pound of flesh from Google? Try to squash them too? Good luck with that.

      In the meantime, sane, rational people like the GP understand that the only way to solve this problem once and for all is to change the system so that it doesn't depend on companies being ethical. Take away their weapons, software patents, and we won't have to worry about Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else using the shitty system like this any more, and companies like Google (and yes, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) can focus more of their time, energy, and money on producing cool products instead of fighting these incessant court battles.

    13. Re:Kill Patents by srw · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. If, as requested by the AC poster, we travel back in time with him/her to a year ago... May 22, 2012 hasn't happened yet.

    14. Re:Kill Patents by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Got lucky launching *a* product at the right time?

      Are you thinking of the same Apple as I am? One is a fluke, any more than that and it's far more than luck. Whatever you think of Apple, attributing their rise from near-death into one of the biggest companies in tech down to luck is to severely underestimate your "enemy", if that's how you want to position yourself (given the rest of your comment).

      Perhaps this is why Apple have such an easy time of it. Their competitors think it's all down to luck and fanaticism.

      For the record: strongly disagree with this lawsuit.

    15. Re:Kill Patents by Theophany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That and the fact that Apple doesn't give a shit about their desktop market. The fact that they're turning £2,000 laptops and PCs into oversized iOS devices is testament to this. As soon as they started raking in obscene amounts of money for handhelds (iPods, iPhones and iPads) they left their desktop products to fester and morph into an unsightly extension of their iOS division.

      Apple's corporate culture seems to favour aggressive psychopaths more than any other, we all know what a lunatic Jobs could be and Cook seems to be little different. There are times now where I long for the days of Ballmer dancing around like a chimp, at least we got a cheap laugh out of his chemically imbalanced grey matter.

    16. Re:Kill Patents by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

      thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.

      Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).

      It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...

      what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.

      anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.

      It is a step beyond this with Apple. THey all agree not to use or do cross licensing and patent protection rackets with each other so if a third party comes in and sues they can combine forces and sue for defense.

      But not Apple. Apple is everyone MUST OWN AN IPHONE or no phone at all. Everyone who makes phones needs to go out of business or leave the market to Apple altogether. They are extreme and fanatical and wont stop unless everyone but Apple is out of business. You can't negotiate with them as they do not want your profits. THey want you out of the market so Jobs vision of him outdoing Bill Gates succeeds. Tim's Cook ego is more important than your needs to your device you paid for.

      I think anti trust laws need to go to Apple as this is beyond the equivalent of giving away IE 6 for free. This is more like if MS sued every OEM who dared include any other browser and used the FTC to ban the downloads and imports of every browser but IE 6. Apple is much more agresive and is using its money to block competitors from entering the market.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    17. Re:Kill Patents by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apple can't have total domination, they know that, there's always going to be some low margin devices from their age old competitor & factories that make their devices. they're fine with duopoly though, they know they don't have to fear windows phone that much and there's room for two on the market - but if both iOS and windows phone become niches among android versions that's bad business for both.

      Strange modding on my post though. it's not a troll, just statement of current facts - thing is though if you're a ms fan or an apple fan you're going to get pissed at the truth. if it's a troll how come nobody was trolled? no counter arguments?

      modding it overrated or off topic would be more apt if anything. these parties were suing each other just few years ago, but not that long ago they stopped that and all are aiming just making android less feasible - MS with demanding money from every android shipped and apple just outright gunning for blocking and the Nokia vs. Apple schism that could have caused trouble to Apple was brought to settlement after Nokia was brought to MS camp, the sums that were in public about that were so large they could have been used for short blocking, much more so than what Apple is using against nexus now, even oracles lawsuit could be seen as extension of that battle(even more so taking that Ellison is connected and was connected with Jobs). I'm not going to go all apk on it and start providing links for the things though, if someone wants consultation why I know all this and why it's true they'll have to look me up and pay relevant fees for my time - though it's all backed up by public news and documents, so I don't see why anyone who can google news articles would bother(not under nda's, no sauna talks, no bar talks - none of that sort led to these conclusions so I'm fine on that, can't sue me).

      and this isn't even near the ugliest things going on in mobile business.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Kill Patents by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      All was fairly quiet in the mobile business due to what was essentially mutually assured destruction. Apples first successful entry into the mobile phone market brought with it an asymmetric patent playing field, as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out and only a few players actually had lots of patents for this new market.

      Apple fired first and it took less than a year after that for the entire market to be ablaze with lawsuits.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    19. Re:Kill Patents by olau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sad fact is that it's probably easier to get Apple to behave than change the system.

    20. Re:Kill Patents by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apple's corporate culture favors aggressive psychopaths. Microsoft's corporate culture favors incompetent and overweight psychopaths.

    21. Re:Kill Patents by Kartu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple helped MS make the Windows GUI

      Uhm, what? You mean they both "stole" GUI idea from Xerox?

  2. improvement by khipu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually prefer separate web searches and local searches. I find it annoying that the default Android search sends query terms over the web to Google, and I rarely if ever find the mixed searches useful.

    As far as I can tell, I can turn off mixed global/local search, but I end up having to choose one or the other with the Google search app. Or is there some way I can get separate shortcuts for local and web searches?

    1. Re:improvement by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your personal views on the matter are completely irrelevant. That a company can be forced to remove a feature that it has provided in the desktop market for almost a decade, in order to not violate a patent that ought not to have been granted; vindicates Posner's views that the patent system is truly broken and absurd.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  3. Do net cheer any software patent victories... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is just the kind of software patent that really strikes fear into smaller developers, since it's a technique that comes to mind naturally (I've had search boxes that have done mixed kinds of searches for decades).

    I have never cheered "victories" even from companies I like, for any software patents... these truly are things that need to be abolished as patentable.

    At this point though, I do not think the international community will allow it unless we get some REALLY strong support from government...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Re:six hundred dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

    Can you be a bit more explicit about what you think this license fee is? And preferably cite a source for it? Because my understanding - and I'm happy to be shown wrong - is that Apple is suing not for a fee but to prevent the features being used.

  5. Re:six hundred dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    paying for a valid innovative licence yes I agree.
    BUT a patent exists for a single search of local AND internet?

    This is classed as logical development and in any sane country isn't patentable. Searching local has existed for ages (but if a patent existed for that sure licence it), searching the internet is what google does... todo a search checking local and net is a logical evolution.

    Best thing is people just stop selling in america leave the locals to Microsoft and apple

  6. Re:six hundred dollars? by VMSBIGOT · · Score: 4, Funny

    LOL; Gotta laugh when a search patent is being used against Google. Not saying anything on the merits, but still...

  7. Thanks Apple!!! by sensationull · · Score: 4, Funny

    We all love you really, now die in a fire!!!

  8. Re:Didn't Google do this first? by VMSBIGOT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.

    FTFY.

  9. Re:Why no voice maps on iPhone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bing is becoming acceptable.

    Bwahahahahahah....*catches breath*....hahahahahahaha...when can I buy your DVD?

  10. I think this is a good time to post... by SpaceWiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this TED talk.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

    I think it's time to start calling technology utilitarian and start removing protections before this sector crashes...

  11. Re:six hundred dollars? by Pringless · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you have ever used any of Apple's products (especially OS X, iTunes or iOS) you know how great they are. They are also innovative to no end. Windows and Linux shows that innovation requires hard work and only Apple magically manages to do it. Apple is fantastic for this and deserves all the credit and patent fees.

  12. patent thought by JimboFBX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't the patent be on how it's done and not that it's done at all? That's like patenting the concept of a machine that seperates fibers from its seeds and not actually patenting the cotton gin itself.

  13. Re:Didn't Google do this first? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Funny

    Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.

    FTFY.

    How does that work exactly?

    grep "search term" /dev/mypc_and_theinternet?

  14. Re:six hundred dollars? by Mitsoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    didn't google desktop also do searches for both ?

  15. Re:six hundred dollars? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    didn't google desktop also do searches for both ?

    Yeah, it did - and I found it quite annoying. And (tangentially related), before that, I remember Internet Explorer trying to blur the line between what was on the local machine and out on the web.

    I'm not an anti-patent zealot; but it seems pretty obvious ALL software patents need to be invalidated. I don't care what kind of capital Apple, Google, Microsoft, et. al. have wrapped up in them - this has gotten ridiculous.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  16. Prior art by jmerlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google Chrome and Firefox at the least, before the iPhone ever did it, allowed you to search your own local history AND the internet from the URL bar. Local searches showed up in the preview, but if you hit enter, it would pass the search onto your favorite browser. Software patents should all be invalidated, IMO.

    1. Re:Prior art by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can Google Chrome be prior art to a patent that was filed 4 years before Chrome existed?

  17. Re:Typical Apple Hater whining by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple thinks they're winning, when in reality they're losing.

    Take a look around. I see more and more people complaining about Apple. I know someone who had a macbook pro that just broke. Apple wanted him to buy another. He looked at PC laptops and asked a friend of mine why PC laptops were so much cheaper and had the same if not better specs.

    He now owns a pc laptop. He was a die hard mac user.

    Apple is ridiculously controlling and overpriced. Users dont want that. Users want cool, so they put up with the fist fucking you get as an apple customer.

  18. Re:six hundred dollars? by mrbester · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Windows has done this for years when searching for device drivers...

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  19. Re:Typical Apple Hater whining by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was in this boat. I was never a die hard Apple fan, but I did like their products. I had a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, an iPad, and two different models of iPod. Eventually, I just got tired of it. I got tired of the expense, I got tired of the smug "Just Works" banter even though I constantly had problems keeping everything synced up, I got tired of being told that I don't have rights to play such-and-such on so-en-so device, and so on.

    The straw that broke the camel's back was when I decided I wanted to write a little iOS app and applied to the Apple developer program. I sent my application and my $99. They sent me an e-mail saying they needed proof of my identity. I didn't like that--what the hell difference does it make?--but went ahead and sent them a copy of my driver license with the license number blacked out. (It's none of their damn business what my license number is.) They sent me another e-mail saying they wanted an unaltered copy of my id, and it has to be notarized. That was around the same time that a bunch of stories were hitting Slashdot about developers complaining about how long it was taking apps to be approved, about Google Voice getting smacked down, and Apple demanding that all of its apps be developed in Objective C.

    At that point, I'd had enough. I demanded by $99 back in a note telling them I'd decided to develop for Android instead and sold my MacBook Pro. I held on to my iPhone until the contract ran out, and last December, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which which I have been absolutely giddy--it's a much better device, in my opinion. I still have the physical iOS devices (the iPhone and iPad) that I use to make sure web sites I work on work in iOS's Safari browser, but at this point, I'm not looking back.

    Apple lost a customer and a developer over their shenanigans, and furthermore, I recommend against buying Apple to my friends and family. I still think the company is very innovative and they have top-notch design teams. They're able to accomplish a lot of amazing things. But other companies these days are accomplishing amazing things too, and in the end, it's just not worth it.

  20. Re:six hundred dollars? by knarf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

    Some people pay the mob. Some people fight the mob. Samsung - and now Google - has chosen to fight the mob. I think they are right in doing so. When it comes to paying the danegeld, rule one is 'never pay the danegeld'. Just ask Shakespeare:

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    âfâfâfNo matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    âfâfâfAnd the nation that plays it is lost!"

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
  21. Re:six hundred dollars? by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really? If you think Samsung is some kind of angel then you're sadly mistaken because they've demanded their fair share of danegelds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung#Price_cartels

  22. Re:six hundred dollars? by clintp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not Shakespeare, Rudyard Kipling:

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
        To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
    "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
        Unless you pay us cash to go away."

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
        And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
        And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
        To puff and look important and to say: --
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
        We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
        But we've proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
        You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
        For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
        You will find it better policy to say: --

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
        No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
        And the nation that pays it is lost!"
    -- Rudyard Kipling, 1911

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  23. That's fine by Zebedeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just make it an US-only "update" and don't bring this bullshit to the rest or the world, where the patent system isn't (completely) torn to hell.

  24. License to Search? by sanman2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Licensing fee? For what? License fee to search your local device? This is patentable?

    Good fucking grief! This reminds me of Amazon's patents on single-click ads.

    The rotten bastards at Apple have patented ordinary concepts that they have no business patenting. There needs to be patent reform.

    Next those bastards will patent the word "phone" so that anybody selling one has to pay fees to Apple.

  25. I still don't have to buy from them ... by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    having been an Apple fan for many years, owning multiple iMacs, Macbooks, iPod devices, and iPads, I am through with buying their products. Perhaps I should have stopped earlier but it just seems 2012 is the year when Apple jumped the shark.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  26. Re:six hundred dollars? by hillbluffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple is not "innovative"; they're good at stealing ideas, repackaging, and selling them. Steve Jobs, in his own words said: "We have always been shameless at stealing good ideas" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU Yes, the selling is doggone hard work, and Steve Jobs was one of the best salesmen this planet will ever see. And I will concede that other companies do their share of stealing too. Examples can always be found if you dig hard enough. But in this case, with such an obvious idea that a patent should never have been granted for, it's "pot kettle black" to Apple, as far as I'm concerned.

  27. Re:Kill Patents - Three Strikes by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They should introduce a three strikes system, if you get injunctions and three or more of your patents are struck down, you don't get any more injunctions. You can still sue for damages after the fact, but no more blocking competitors with irrelevant tat.

    I think that solves 90% of the problems with the current system. There's still the issue of needing the EFF to provide lawyers to people that aren't able to fight Apple/Oracle etc.. but they're not really that interested in those suits anyway, there's not enough money in the individual's accounts to pay the legal fees.

  28. The entire system is broken by hweimer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Patent examiners are not stupid. But their performance reviews hinge on the number of patent application cases they were able to close. Rejecting a patent is much more time consuming than accepting it, because one has to justify it towards the applicants who are most certain to appeal the decision anyway, creating even more paperwork. So there is a strong incentive for any patent examiner to just rubber stamp with approval, resulting in the mess we currently observe.

    The reason behind this lies in the fact that it is politically desired to artificially inflate the numbers of patents granted in a country, because that is widely seen as an indicator for innovation. And of course, that is just another instance of Campbell's law.

    --
    OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software