Galaxy Tab Sales Ban Lifted, Samsung Sues Apple Over iPhone 5

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Galaxy Tab Sales Ban Lifted, Samsung Sues Apple Over iPhone 5

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday October 2, 2012 @06:46AM from the where-we-stop-nobody-knows dept.

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "A temporary sales ban on Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in the U.S. has been lifted by a U.S. court. District Judge Lucy Koh gave a court order rescinding a ban on U.S. sales that was part of a patent dispute with Apple. ... The ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 had been placed before a month-long patent trial between Apple and Samsung. In August, at the conclusion of that trial Apple was awarded a victory on many of its patent violation claims where it said Samsung had copied Apple's iPhone and iPad designs. It was also awarded more than $1bn (£664m) in damages. However, the jury found that Samsung had not violated the patent that was the basis for the ban on the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung, therefore, argued for the sales ban to be lifted." Samsung also went on the offensive against the iPhone 5 today, filing a motion to add the device to its ongoing patent infringement suit against Apple. Meanwhile, on another front, some good news for Apple: Motorola Mobility, owned by Google, has withdrawn its second complaint against Apple to the ITC. The complaint was filed in August over patent infringement claims involving several minor features. No explanation has been provided for the withdrawal, but Google indicated there was no agreement between the companies.

196 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 06:48 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Samsung needs to stop trying to stop Apple from copying the things it innovates on, and focus on innovating every year!
1. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by DickBreath · 2012-10-02 07:01 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Samsung isn't worried about Apple copying. Samsung is too busy innovating.
  
  The reason for this lawsuit, is stated in the article itself -- oh, but I forgot -- this is Slashdot and nobody reads the article. In a nutshell Samsung has to use defensive lawsuits because Apple has gone insane.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
2. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Sponge+Bath · 2012-10-02 07:05 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Samsung is too busy innovating... Apple has gone insane.
  Well, we know whose side you are on. The Samsung as saint and Apple as devil meme is very popular on /. so you should get some nice modding.
3. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by CastrTroy · 2012-10-02 07:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except that Samsung had internal documents that stated how they wanted to copy the iPhone. I think that's where they made the big mistake here.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
4. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?
  Talk about cognitive dissonance...
5. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-10-02 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Apple has been and always will be insane in their thinking. "Think different" really meant "do as your told"
6. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by DickBreath · 2012-10-02 07:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not like Apple has ever copied. Or like Steve Jobs proudly boasting about copying. It's the fact that someone dared to compete in what Apple wanted to be a total monopoly market. Nobody else should be able to build smartphones. That is what this is about. Not the trivia of rounded corner rectangles or bouncy scrolling. It's about Apple wanting to have a monopoly market with monopoly pricing. That doesn't work if smartphones become a commodity.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
7. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 07:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with are intelligent arguements on the issue.
8. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  You should tell that to everybody who predicted a disaster for the iPhone (no keyboard? lame). BTW, copying is all right, if you pay for doing so, it's called licensing.
9. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by SolitaryMan · 2012-10-02 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's hard not to be on Samsung's side in this. Apple sued first over some totally ridiculous crap.
  They are both far from being saints, that's a given. Both phones suck*, but Apple definitely crossed the line of sanity here.
  * They both suck *as phones*, when compared to "dumb" phones. My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
  
  --
  May Peace Prevail On Earth
10. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-02 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  And Samsung is different how?
11. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with
  is an empty comments section.
12. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Did yo read those "internal documents"? They are just expert telling design team where they went wrong with examples of good design (from Apple). It reads like "Our UI: buttons are not aligned. Good UI (yes, it's Apple's, so?): buttons are aligned. What to do: align those fucking buttons, you morons"
  Saying it's "how they wanted to copy iPhone" is funny considering the advice on the slide in the article says "Differentiate icons from iPhone".
  TL;DR: Take care not to steal specifics, but let's steal all common design sense from Apple!
13. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by lorenlal · 2012-10-02 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's also a problem with that. Apple doesn't license their design patents, and will pretty much only license others when under duress.
14. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by cashxx · 2012-10-02 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.....they have a license agreement with Microsoft.
15. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by cashxx · 2012-10-02 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/13/apple-has-licensed-ios-design-patents-to-microsoft-agreement-bans-cloning/ And highly doubt they are under duress from Microsoft.
16. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by farble1670 · 2012-10-02 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?
  copying isn't a crime in itself. apple copied the idea of the smartphone, the touchscreen, gestures, tablet computers, portable audio devices ... the list goes on.
  the fact that google warned them doesn't implicate them in a crime. if i tell you not to cross the street because that man is going to rob you, and you do it anyway and get robbed, that doesn't make the robber innocent ... it just means you have poor judgement / don't listen to advice.
17. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  ^^ brilliant
  I literally LOLLED
18. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
  They could make the battery life longer if they wanted, but it would make the phone bigger and heavier. Apple chooses the lowest battery life people need, and put whatever size battery it takes to hit that number (if you want more battery life, there are very nice cases with built in batteries). In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?
  And your two pushes of a button including unlocking sounds unlikely to me. All my old phones required two pushes just to unlock, and then a long press on a button (or some similar shortcut) to call someone. With my iPhone, I don't even have to unlock it. I just hold the button down and say the person's name, and it calls them.
19. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Apple offered Samsung an $800 million dollar settlement to license the design patents. The only thing they refused to license was their trade dress.
  Samsung refused to settle, and the court awarded a few hundred million dollars more than Apple was asking for (we still don't know how much the final figure will be, since judge has yet to increase the $1.05b number to include jury's "wilful infringement" ruling... and it will probably be appealed anyway).
20. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by DickBreath · 2012-10-02 08:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Licensing, as you say. Okay. Then Apple should license one of Samsung's patents that covers, and I kid you not, how smartphone displays change when music is being played.
  
  It's a good thing Apple and Samsung are both focusing on what is truly important. Kudos to the US Patent and Trademark office for creating a system that helps companies to focus their efforts on what is important.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
21. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by jd2112 · 2012-10-02 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Apple doesn't see Windows phone as a threat to their market share.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
22. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by narcc · 2012-10-02 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Don't confuse them with facts and reason. The meme is that Samsung made their phones as identical as they could manage. Any differences between their phones and the iPhone was their inability to match Apples pure awesome.
  Besides, no one had anything like rounded corners or icons aligned to a grid or buttons that align neatly before Apple. If they did then they didn't "put them all together" in to the "perfect package". Yes, even their supposedly awful chicklet keyboards and hockey-puck mice were superior to all other alternatives -- the perfect design that give the user the perfect experience.
  All those designs that came before the iPhone that look, well, like an iPhone are all lies created by time-traveling fandroids. Apple invented all that is good. Bow your head and thank Steve Jobs for blessing you with the opportunity to buy a holy iPhone, in all it's glory. Praise be!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
23. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by citizenr · 2012-10-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, Jobs never had documents like that stating he wanted to copy Braun.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
24. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with
  is an empty comments section.
  I agree. That was a good one! :-)
25. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  The specific linked document says nothing about alignment. It specifically says that the light effect that iOS icons have give them a 3D feel. Also it says that the rounded curves gives iOS icons a "soft and comfortable feel". The recommendations say specifically to copy both the light effect and the curves. The third point only says not to use similar icons to avoid the appearance that Samsung was copying (which Samsung was doing by adopting first two recommendations).
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
26. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  The point is not about implication. The fact the Google warned them is a problem for Samsung's defenses. In a case where a patent/copyright is decided to be infringing (which the jury decided), the fines differ greatly if the infringement was willful and intentional. The fact the Google told Samsung allows the court to conclude that (1) the infringement appeared to be significant enough that Google itself was concerned and (2) Samsung was told and cannot claim they did not know. The internal documents seem to suggest that Samsung willfully infringed.
  Your analogy would be more apt if you told people to cross the street because there is a great restaurant but there is a lot of robberies. Now if you knew about the robberies but still directed people anyway and a third party also warned you about crime across the street, then are you responsible for what happened to those people?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
27. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Since it's totally ridiculous crap, why was samsung copying it?
28. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. "Specific linked document" is below, embedded from Scribd. What you quote is a single slide from that document. Even that slide doesn't say "copy", so now you're down to blatant lies. It says to add light effect and round edges - you mean to say those are specific Apple inventions and not common design sense? I'm looking at my desktop right now and half of icons there employ "effects of light" and "rounded edges" for "luxurious feel". Other slides are like that too - slide #1, for example, says tells Samsung engineers to copy Apple's brilliant invention of changing UI orientation on phone rotation.
29. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. "Specific linked document" is below, embedded from Scribd. What you quote is a single slide from that document. Even that slide doesn't say "copy", so now you're down to blatant lies. It says to add light effect and round edges - you mean to say those are specific Apple inventions and not common design sense?
  Copy 14.to follow as a pattern or model; imitate.
  Almost all of the documents follow the same pattern: Apple does it this way. We do it this way. Do it the way Apple does it. Hence "copy"
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
30. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  All the documents follow the same pattern: This part is done wrong. This is how it's done right. Improve it. Your application of "copy" is so wide, that iPhone itself is a goddamn blatant copy of a lot of previous things (Are you sure "light effects to give 3d look" and "rounded edges to add softer feeling" were done by Apple first? They probably followed^Wcopied someone else's previous design ideas, those copycats from Cupertino!)
  You're presupposing that Apple's there because they're set out to copy Apple, while in fact all of the left side can be found in other phones with good design. "Apple's UI rotates. Our doesn't rotate. Make it rotate", "Apple's number of messages icon overlay is clearly visible. Our number of messages status bar icon is poorly visible. Make it brighter to make it visible" (note how it's not "make our icon an overlay, too", for example), "Our UI allows for duplicate icons on home screen. Prevent it", "Ending call takes too much actions. Apple's UI doesn't. Lower the number of actions needed". There's nothing Apple specific in those comparisons and improvements.
31. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by cynyr · 2012-10-02 12:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not that ideas are crap, it's ridiculous that they got a patent for what amounted to letting the first year engineer design the outside of the device. Things with rectangular screens are going to be rectangular with rounded corners.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
32. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by farble1670 · 2012-10-02 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  being illegal and being in poor judgement are two different things. was samsung's copying of apple in poor judgement? that's what google said. is it illegal? google almost certainly did try to comment on the legality of samsung's products.
33. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by SolitaryMan · 2012-10-02 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
  They could make the battery life longer if they wanted, but it would make the phone bigger and heavier. Apple chooses the lowest battery life people need, and put whatever size battery it takes to hit that number (if you want more battery life, there are very nice cases with built in batteries). In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?
  Yep. With the phone I had before, which I had to charge everyday, I used to forget it every other day and was left *without* a phone every other day. I just don't want to think about it everyday. If I had some sort of wireless charging station at home, that authomatically starts charging, even if the phone is in your pocket then yes, I wouldn't worry.
  The best thing though was that if I had to go somewhere for a weekend or even longer, I didn't even bother to take the charger with me.
  
  And your two pushes of a button including unlocking sounds unlikely to me.
  OK, it wasn't just a push. It was a long press to unlock, long press to speed dial. Still pretty optimal.
  
  All my old phones required two pushes just to unlock, and then a long press on a button (or some similar shortcut) to call someone. With my iPhone, I don't even have to unlock it. I just hold the button down and say the person's name, and it calls them.
  Well, I *really* don't want to talk to my phone. Especially saying aloud the names of the people I'm calling. Yeah, I know I'm old fashioned. My old "dumb" phone, had this feature too BTW, so there is nothing new about it. I just never used it.
  
  --
  May Peace Prevail On Earth
34. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  are you asking if it's illegal? Wasn't there a recent trial by jury...? Wait, is copyright and patent violation now a civil or criminal issue...?
35. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Samsung lets users do anything they want with their devices. They even come with unlocked bootloaders.
  
  Apple wants everyone to use their devices exactly the same way.
36. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by psiclops · 2012-10-02 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  OK, it wasn't just a push. It was a long press to unlock, long press to speed dial. Still pretty optimal.
  i'd rather sequentially press two buttons than hold 1 button.
  i used to have gesture unlock which was even easier and had some security but i haven't bothered with cyanogen yet on my current phone and android doesn't have it natively (I dont count the stupid pattern unlock)
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
37. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  The recent trial was a civil matter so whether Samsung products are illegal is not even a proper question. The question before the court was whether Apple's patents were valid. Was there infringement of the patents? The last question is whether the infringement was willful. The jury decided yes to all three parts.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
38. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Samsung lets users do anything they want with their devices. They even come with unlocked bootloaders.
  Apple wants everyone to use their devices exactly the same way.
  Then don't buy Apple devices, don't even read about them in the tech press. Your blood pressure will take a downturn and this site will be a little less clogged up with posts by Apple hating Google fanboys.
39. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by daver00 · 2012-10-02 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  They both suck *as phones*, when compared to "dumb" phones. My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
  Many people (myself included) understand and accept this as a trade-off for the ability to carry an email/gps/web browser/media player comfortably in your pocket. I use all of the other features more than my actual phone anyway.
40. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm... it's not a meme. The grandparent is talking about a real document outlying changes that Samsung made to there UI to match iOS. But judging from your response it doesn't really seem like you can emotionally accept this fact.
41. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-03 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. With the phone I had before, which I had to charge everyday, I used to forget it every other day and was left *without* a phone every other day. I just don't want to think about it everyday. If I had some sort of wireless charging station at home, that authomatically starts charging, even if the phone is in your pocket then yes, I wouldn't worry.
  If I turn wireless data and wifi off on my GS3 or my old original GS the battery will last for a week. If all you want is basic phone functionality then modern smartphones are no worse than dumbphones, sometimes even better due to having high capacity batteries to support all the smart stuff.
  Most people with smartphones do want the data services though, so make the trade off between functionality and having to charge up every day. Learn how to turn off the services you don't use (mobile data, background sync) and you will be happy.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by SolitaryMan · 2012-10-03 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, another thing is that I didn't have any trouble doing it with ONE HAND.
  
  --
  May Peace Prevail On Earth
43. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by lorenlal · 2012-10-03 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fine... Wrong word. Not duress. They'll only license when they think the licensee doesn't matter.
44. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
  In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?
  Except there goes the phone's usefulness when you go away on business and forget to pack your charger.
45. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by psiclops · 2012-10-03 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  i also never had that problem. i would consider that a massive drawback in unlocking if it had ever happened to me
  ( i have an s3 at the moment and have never needed 2 hands to unlock)
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
46. Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! by yenic · 2012-10-07 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, I have to use a smartphone for work and was never impressed. I had an HTC Tbolt and now a GS3. Convenient (besides the Tbolt which was a POS and still is from day 1), but not in the same realm as a standard phone. If my employer no longer provides a smartphone (a blessing), I would just use a standard candy bar phone and pickup a tablet (preferably one with month to month internet plans like the iPad, but preferably with Android).
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
screw you guys... by zlives · 2012-10-02 06:51 · Score: 4, Funny

i am going back to BB
1. Re:screw you guys... by Alter_3d · 2012-10-02 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Bonzybuddy is making smartphones?
  
  Damn, my head hurts just to think about it..
2. Re:screw you guys... by zlives · 2012-10-02 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  i was pointing to Buckaroo Banzai 10
3. Re:screw you guys... by jd2112 · 2012-10-02 08:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  i am going back to BB
  Yay! They have a customer this month!
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
4. Re:screw you guys... by narcc · 2012-10-02 09:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They're doing fine. They outperformed expectations last quarter, and their user-base continues to grow. (I know that a bullshit article on slashdot a week or so ago made a different claim, but it was pitifully wrong.) Not bad for a company that hasn't released a new flagship phone for nearly a year.
  From what we've seen, BB10 is nothing short of amazing. Even their current OS7 phones (though about a year old) are very slick and compelling -- the 9900 is a real workhorse. For those that need to do actual work on our phones, it's hard to beat. Even the RIM hating reviewers gave it high-praise.
  It's not a bad move. Unless you use your smartphone to do nothing but play games, a BlackBerry is a fantastic choice. With BB10, it's going to be really difficult to find a reason to stick with iOS or Android -- even Windows 8 is an attractive alternative. I don't see Android and iOS maintaining the lead over the next few years.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
5. Re:screw you guys... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2012-10-02 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, losing less and less money, with no debt, their share price will go double digit before the end of the year for sure.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
6. Re:screw you guys... by narcc · 2012-10-02 10:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Though a double-digit share price by the end of the year seems unrealistic, with their new products not expected until January.
  They are debt free and have increased their cash reserves. (Interesting note, cash reserves increased by nearly the amount of their reported losses.) They have a fantastic set of new products and a clear launch strategy.
  I know the meme is that they have no customers (even though they've consistently gained many more customers than they've lost quarter after quarter) and they're dying (even though they've only posted two losses post iPhone, the second being much smaller than the first) and that they're selling the same phone virtually unchanged since 2005 (which is laughably false). Reality, however, doesn't fit the narrative. They have, without question, the most advanced and capable mobile OS on the planet. While subjective, their UI is brilliant and represents a dramatic departure from both their own history and from the current market leaders in very positive ways (they're inventing the future of mobile computing). Just the gesture suite alone is leagues ahead of iOS.
  In short, they're hardly dying, their new products are impressive, and they have a clear plan moving forward.
  No, they won't be in the double digits this year, but 2013 looks to be a very good year for RIM.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
7. Re:screw you guys... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I'm sure all the people who were waiting for them to give their government encryption keys and full-blown access to everything they do, are now just counting down the days until the new product line launches!
8. Re:screw you guys... by morcego · 2012-10-02 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  They outperformed expectations last quarter
  If they managed a single sale, they outperformed expectations ...
  
  --
  morcego
9. Re:screw you guys... by narcc · 2012-10-02 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad that you decided to post even though know absolutely nothing about the subject being discussed.
  Thanks. Uninformed opinions are awesome!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
10. Re:screw you guys... by Xest · 2012-10-02 20:13 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, their userbase has been growing, but in proportion to the growth of the overall smartphone market it's been a relative decline, and that is why although their userbase is growing, their marketshare is shrinking. So say the market is originally 1000 users in size, and RIM owns what, to make it easy, let's say 10% of that - 100 users, then the market grows by another 10% (100 users) and RIM gain 5 of those new users then yes, they now have 105 users instead of 100, but their share of the market has declined from 10% (which would be 110 users).
  This is also why Apple's marketshare with the iPhone has been fairly static around the 17% - 20% mark for about 2 years now despite them achieving record sales each quarter- because the iPhones per-unit sales growth has been roughly proportional to the increase in size of the market.
  I think it's only Android that's been consistently outperforming market growth, though maybe Windows Phone too, but that's because it was at a low starting point to begin with.
  For what it's worth though, although I disagree with how positive you are towards RIM, I don't think things are going quite as well for them as you seem to think, I do still think they're a player that people shouldn't ignore. Even if they have 5% of marketshare still then that's a) Still 10s of millions of customers, and b) Still far more than Microsoft, despite it's marketing money, it's defacto take over of Nokia, and it's ability to strong-arm people based on it's existing Windows based ecosystems.
11. Re:screw you guys... by mrops · 2012-10-03 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Surprizingly I agree, I had the opportunity to play with some of the new prototypes given to developers and was really impressed. Having said that, it didn't seem like anything new except for a few interesting gestures to do stuff, but I would definitely say they caught up to the market. I do like the 9900 but just putting off from getting one in hopes of getting a BB10.Further, I find the new personal/corporate modes or whatever they call it interesting (the dev prototype didn't have this). Next year is going to be an interesting one in terms of seeing how RIM performs.
  FYI, dev prototype is really a miniaturised playbook IMO. Apparently the BB10 has more, personal/corporate zone as an example.
12. Re:screw you guys... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  you mean the fbi tracking issue with IOS?
13. Re:screw you guys... by zlives · 2012-10-03 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  +1 insightful
  "they're a player that people shouldn't ignore." along with the rest of your comment. I am a BB and recently droid user, and if the BB10 is anything like the videos online, i can switch back in a hear beat. I loved the way the interface was designed around phone communication (hmmm a phone designed for phone use!!) i could start typing numbers(/characters) from any screen and BB realized that it is a phone first... simple things like that. They did drop the ball but hopefully they are humbled enough to continue innovating rather that sit ona product and think all will be well.
  competition is always a plus in my book.
14. Re:screw you guys... by zlives · 2012-10-03 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  +1 funny?
15. Re:screw you guys... by zlives · 2012-10-03 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  "personal/corporate modes or whatever they call it interesting" this is actually awesome from a BYOD stand point... I no longer would have to remote wipe a user device just to maintain corporate policy...
16. Re:screw you guys... by morcego · 2012-10-03 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  +1 funny?
  Me ? Or narcc (412956) above ? :D
  
  --
  morcego
Let me just say... by Sez+Zero · 2012-10-02 06:52 · Score: 0

Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng.
1. Re:Let me just say... by mcgrew · 2012-10-02 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  So why did you click the link?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Let me just say... by ThatsMyNick · 2012-10-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Probably to say... Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng
3. Re:Let me just say... by Sez+Zero · 2012-10-02 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Probably to say... Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng
  Exactly. Let me know when there's full-on thermonuclear patent war.
  
  Or when Tim Cook and J.K Shin engage in a Steel Cage Celebrity Deathmatch.
4. Re:Let me just say... by mcgrew · 2012-10-03 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or when Tim Cook and J.K Shin engage in a Steel Cage Celebrity Deathmatch.
  Is that show stil on? I loved it when I had cable. They would surely have a Romney vs Obama one about now if so. And yes, a Cook/Shin deathmatch would be awesome! But they probably wouldn't run it, since only nerds have heard of either of those guys.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Samsung is obviously violating Apple's trademark by The+Last+Gunslinger · 2012-10-02 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny

By copying Apple's well-established business process of suing their competitors for trademark and patent infringement, Samsung is clearly guilty of infringement.

(sound of recursive cranial implosion here)
god software patents suck by arm1975 · 2012-10-02 06:54 · Score: 1

like anyone's never gonna make anything that looks like or does the same shit as anyone else...
Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 06:55 · Score: 0

Apple just uses a Qualcom chip to handle LTE.
So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?
If Samsung can sue over LTE standard essential patents mean nothing, and standards are then dead.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by squiggleslash · 2012-10-02 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?
  
  Well, just an idea, but maybe other users of said chip licensed the patent? (Something particularly likely given the amount of cross licensing that goes on.)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
2. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by DickBreath · 2012-10-02 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Before the iPhone, the mobile phone industry was still a patent thicket minefield. Lots of established companies had patents on various parts of what made the whole system work. Standards weren't dead then. Nobody was insane enough to launch the first nuclear weapon. Mutually assured destruction only works if all the parties are rational.
  
  Enter Apple.
  
  Apple thinks if you're going to start firing nuclear weapons, you might as well fire lots of them all at once.
  
  Remember Steve Jobs say he would spend all of Apple's (eg, stockholders) money to destroy Android. Does this sound like a rational statement from a rational person? Really? Destroy Apple in order to destroy Android? Wow.
  
  Apple's lawsuits aren't about rectangles with round corners. They're not about bouncy scrolling. They're not about any other particular details being claimed. Apple's lawsuits are about competition. Steve Jobs dreamed of having a new Bill Gates like monopoly. Pesky competitors think they should be able to compete. Apple believes that the entire mobile smartphone business is God's gift to Apple by divine right. Even established existing players who've made mobile phones for decades should get out and leave the entire market to Apple.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
3. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by tlhIngan · 2012-10-02 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Apple just uses a Qualcom chip to handle LTE.
  So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?
  If Samsung can sue over LTE standard essential patents mean nothing, and standards are then dead.
  Depends on how the LTE patents are licensed. Hell, Apple's got a bunch of LTE patents, both original (e.g., nano-SIM) and bought (Nortel). Whether or not they apply to Samsung products is quetionable (they too are probably FRAND patents, and Samsung is probably compensating Apple in some way for them...).
  FRAND patent lawsuits are tricky - and even the EU is investigating FRAND patent abuse by Motorola, and the like, because if this continues, it means no one can make an LTE phone, which makes the whole exercise moot. (FYI - the patents Apple sued Samsung for are NOT FRAND, while Samsung counter-sued using FRAND).
  It's why there was great opposition to letting Apple's patents into the standard - remember getting your patents into standards (and thus FRAND) is a huge political ploy - with a lot of "I'll vote for you if you vote for me" kinda backroom deals. With Apple being the 800lb giant (money wise anyhow), wanting to shut Apple out is good business sense (cha-ching windfall from Apple). With Apple's patent in, and even though Apple's making the FRAND terms "free", that still counts at the who-owes-whom table when it comes to deciding how the patents are licensed.
4. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 07:10 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why not actually read what happened? Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)
  Samsung then throws a hissy fit and claims Apple does not have a right to use those patents and need to license them separately.
  Have you not see the words "patent exhaustion" discussed at all? Sheesh.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine
5. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Enter Nokia.
  FTFY. I know it's fun to blame Apple for all of this, but Nokia fired the first bullet.
  Now come one shills, mod me down for stating facts!
6. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-02 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  How's that tin hat of yours.
7. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by squiggleslash · 2012-10-02 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)
  
  Samsung obviously disagrees with you and is willing to go to court over it. They don't believe any licence they gave Qualcomm covers Apple. Given Samsung's usual rate is "% of final product price", I find it hard to believe any license they gave Qualcomm would cover third parties too.
  As for why you'd buy Qualcomm's chips - it's because they're a pre-made component. Why do you think? A business sourcing components from a supplier doesn't assume that any product they make using said components will suddenly become licensed. Why would you?
  What you've read is obviously wrong, or you've taken away a completely false impression from it. Either way, no, it's entirely possible that other users of Qualcomm's chips have negotiated patent licenses, and Apple has done its usual thing of "holding out for a better deal" (or simply ignoring patents held by rivals, in the hope it gets another dumbass Jury foreman on its side.)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
8. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Why not actually read what happened? Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)
  It's common for companies to get licensing from the company that owns the technology, rather than from the seller of a chip. Especially in the mobile phone business where cross-licensing between companies is standard.
  Why would, say, HTC pay Qualcomm for a license from Samsung if they already have said license (or could get it at a better price themselves)? That's why chips (and other pieces of tech) often does not come with licenses to use it, and why you might need to get that from a third party. Especially in deals between big corporations like this.
  I have no clue if that's what happened here. But your assumption that no-one would buy tech without buying a commercial license at the same time is false.
9. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  How's that tin hat of yours.
  Fool! They've removed all tin foil, replacing it with only useless Aluminum Foil -- You can't make a Tin hat out of Aluminum! It's a Conspiracy I tell you! How can you not see? There's no Tin Foil anywhere anymore!
10. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, Nokia started this in october 2009, more than two years after the first iPhone shipped, when they saw their smartphone marketshare going down fast.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars
  So yeah, Apple has been trigger happy, but not moreso than its disgruntled competitors.
11. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Jeng · 2012-10-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Pffft, what fun is it to down mod an AC?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
12. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 08:10 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I don't understand why people continue to make nonsense arguments that even the courts have found to be hogwash.
  Samsung licenses the patents to Qualcomm. And then tells Qualcomm and Apple that *ONLY APPLE* does not have a patent license, every other customer of Qualcomm has.
  You claim otherwise - what do you base your argument on?
  http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/03/samsung-suffers-second-and-even-more.html says:
  "Furthermore, the court held that Samsung cannot assert 3G/UMTS patents against the iPhone 4S due to patent exhaustion: Apple is licensed by extension since it purchases baseband chips from Qualcomm, and Samsung's attempt to terminate its license agreement with Qualcomm as far as third-party beneficiary Apple is concerned failed because Samsung had make a commitment to ETSI, the standards body in charge of 3G, that it would grant irrevocable licenses to its 3G/UMTS-essential patents."
13. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  So this the narrative the apple haters are using today. Seriously, you guys paint yourself in to every tinier corners and wonder why every one laughs at you. You realize you're supporting who's attempting to leverage supposedly FRAND patents. They're wrong, and you're wrong to support them.
  If you buy a chip from Intel, don't you expect the right to use it to build a computer? Undoubtedly there is some third party licensed IP in every intel chip, but you don't expect that third party to come double dipping and charge you for for using that IP too?
  Of course you fucking don't. Because it's a fucking bullshit money grab.
  Why hate on apple because they don't want to pay up either? If you were apple, and had your weight to throw around, would you not negotiate for a better deal too? What's wrong with that?
  Yes, that's apple's motive. And yes, I appreciate it. At every turn apple has taken that leverage and turned it around it to a better product for me.
  They did it with the carriers. They bucked the trend of carriers raping and fucking a device so they could sell it's features back to you at a monthly rate. The original iphone was an APPLE phone and NOT and ATT phone. You as the consumer dealt with apple, and apple made the device awesome. They put the carriers in their place, as data providers and nothing else.
  Apple did it with music. Slapped the labels around and made the first functional, non braindead digital music store.
  The list goes on, but at every turn apple has used their influence to make a better product and nothing else.
14. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by PortHaven · 2012-10-02 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well rounded corners and a flat screen means no one else can make a phone either. So if that stands, so should Samsung FRAND
  Frankly, Palm should be suing the !@#$% out of all of them. Grid of icon on mobile device.
15. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  You are trying to make sense and logical arguments. That is going to spoil the name for all Anonymous Cowards from now onwards!! :)
16. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of the time licenses are non-transferable from the vendor to its customers unless the vendor specifically negotiated with the patent holders. It'll be clearly stated in the product as such when it is covered. If the FRAND requires a percentage of the price tag, there is no way in hell that the chip vendor can know the final price of the product that its customer set at.
  The only exceptions I see is that the vendor itself owns the patent e.g. Philips now NXP used to hold I2C and they grant anyone that uses their I2C chips the license, but were very aggressively suing anyone else especially in the last 3 years prior to patent's expiration date.
  I mean Intel can be selling CPU to Joe, but Joe uses someone's software patents on top of the CPU, would Joe be covered by Intel?
  Even if Intel were to provide a reference design that Joe copy & pasted into the design, there is always the fine prints that the documents would state the legal status.
  One cannot make any assumptions at all.
17. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  And what right does Samsung have to distinguish Apple from other customers of Qualcomm. They can if it is in the agreement with Qualcomm however FRAND licensing with Qualcomm would most likely forbid that. Intel and AMD chips undoubtedly have patented tech in each other's chips; Intel cannot tell AMD that they can't sell to Dell their Opteron chips but they can sell to HP because they don't want Dell to use the patented tech in the chip.
  
  As for why you'd buy Qualcomm's chips - it's because they're a pre-made component. Why do you think? A business sourcing components from a supplier doesn't assume that any product they make using said components will suddenly become licensed. Why would you?
  
  So Qualcomm making a pre-made component wants to make things more complicated for each of their customers? That makes no sense. If I buy a common ARM chip from TI or a common ARM chip from Samsung to build a mobile phone, you're saying the norm is that I also have to negotiate with ARM for a separate license. So when you buy a pre-installed Windows computer from Dell, you have to negotiate separately with MS about licensing? That makes no sense.
  
  What you've read is obviously wrong, or you've taken away a completely false impression from it. Either way, no, it's entirely possible that other users of Qualcomm's chips have negotiated patent licenses, and Apple has done its usual thing of "holding out for a better deal" (or simply ignoring patents held by rivals, in the hope it gets another dumbass Jury foreman on its side.),
  The problem is that Apple clearly negotiated a deal with Qualcomm. That cannot be disputed. Qualcomm as the middle man had a deal with Samsung. That is also not in dispute. There was never a discussion about Apple dealing with Samsung until the suits started so Apple couldn't have been holding out for a better deal.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
18. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by gmhowell · 2012-10-02 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've misplaced my Samsung vs. Apple cheatsheet, but IIRC, linking to FOSSpatents is supposed to get people slamming you for linking to pro-Microsoft shill Florian Mueller.
  That said, I'm wondering if Samsung and others with FRAND patents and so forth have changed terms with chip makers (Qualcomm) to prevent the exhaustion idea from being a successful defense in the future. Investigating that would be more useful than the bloviators discussing every little move in the ongoing bits of various lawsuits.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
19. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Apple doesn't have a patent on rounded corners you retard.
20. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone making phones has some type of patent for something. Through extensive cross licensing, they were all making phones with each other technology, weather it was for a communications protocol, a battery design, a software piece, a screen design etc... It was a pure give and take operation and everyone benefited. Along comes Apple into the mix. They are using core technology pieces from everyone else with relatively low cost fees under FRAND along with all other companies that are sharing their technology evenly with FRAND/cross licensing but Apple is giving or offering NOTHING back to the group. Apple is playing hardball with its few patents in a group where everyone else was playing reasonably well and had been for decades. Apple saw the weakness and took advantage of it. Good for them, bad for everyone else.
21. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  *shrug* Facts are facts regardless of who says it. OP claims there's no patent exhaustion. If OP can't show any evidence, then OP is talking out of his or her ass.
  Whatever else you may thin of fosspatents, it *is* possible to find other sources, or even go to the court itself and read up on what was actually wrote about patent exhaustion if OP thinks it is full of horse shit.
22. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by scot4875 · 2012-10-02 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  And you Apple morons think that having a design patent on a rectangular device (yes, that patent was asserted, regardless of how much you like to deny it) with rounded corners is a reasonable thing.
  At least Samsung is suing over something that's actually innovative: technology.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
23. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  well, android fanbois are trying to justify the lawsuits and so come up with arguments that do not make sense and have no basis in reality.
  I just wish they could have came up with more reasonable arguments or admit that Samsung is clutching at straws on this.
24. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by Eyeball97 · 2012-10-02 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, Apple's got a bunch of LTE patents, both original (e.g., nano-SIM)
  
  PLEASE tell me you're joking, calling the nanosim an LTE patent AND an 'original' patent. It's a SIM CARD with a few mm shaved off it. No functional difference whatsoever from a credit-card sized sim card (the original form factor). In fact, you could take an original credit card sized sim card and a pair of scissors, and make it work in any iPhone up to and including the 5.
  Once again, they have successfully patented a shape. Please.
25. Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit by PortHaven · 2012-10-03 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  It has a trade dress...which are now being used as perpetual patents you moron. :-P
When will this Shit End? by sycodon · 2012-10-02 06:56 · Score: 1

Just make it stop.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:When will this Shit End? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-10-02 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why? I'm rather enjoying this clash of the titans, and sort of expecting robocop to start drilling execs before too long.
2. Re:When will this Shit End? by gmhowell · 2012-10-02 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Why? I'm rather enjoying this clash of the titans, and sort of expecting robocop to start drilling execs before too long.
  I'll buy that for a dollar.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
3. Re:When will this Shit End? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why? I'm rather enjoying this clash of the titans, and sort of expecting robocop to start drilling execs before too long.
  True, this is better than ultimate fighting. At least here everyone is a patent expert.
Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 06:56 · Score: -1, Troll

Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.
1. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.
  Apple Fanboy: I love my phone.
  Android Fanboy: I hate your phone.
  So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt....
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:21 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt....
  ....then the Fandriod is a cunt currently experiencing the symptoms of a yeast infection.
  OK seriously. I picked Apple because Apple was "first" in the smartphone space - and when I say "smartphone" I mean "I had a busted iPod, shitty BlackBerry, and just moved to a new city and needed some form of GPS, so instead of buying 3 different devices I bought one". If Andriod was first, I likely would have gone that way.
  Now, 4 years later? I've spent too much money in apps, and have too many Apple iOS devices in my household as a whole to really consider switching unless Andriod came out with some massive OMG I HAVE TO HAVE THIS!!! feature - which to date, they have not done.
  That said, I have no issue with Andriod, and quite bluntly some of the Andriod devices are fucking beautiful too. My co-worker just got a S3, and that's a fucking NICE device. I don't post anti-Andriod bullshit in every Andriod article I read.
  Pick the fucking device that works for you. Who really gives a fuck what someone else purchases? Do you really have that much free fucking time on your hands that you want to insult every person who doesn't pick the same as you?
  No matter what...if you're a closed-minded cunt, then you fucking fail...whether at IT or life. Being evengelical about either platform makes you the same as the asshat hardcore religious fundamentalist, blindly shouting their so-called "truth", ignorant to the reality of the world.
3. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:23 · Score: -1
  
  Fuck you.
4. Re:Apple is a cunt by kenboldt · 2012-10-02 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.
  Apple Fanboy: I love my phone.
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt then the Android Fanboy is Captain Obvious
  FTFY, oh, and an ellipsis only has three dots but now I'm just getting picky.
5. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  wow, that was really fscking hilarious. I guess you're a cunt too.
6. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:27 · Score: -1
  
  "If the omission comes after the end of a sentence, the ellipsis will be placed after the period, making a total of four dots"
  http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm
  If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get it right.
7. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  Heh. Yeah, that was quite a rebuttal to "I hate your phone".
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
8. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Welp, if my comment made you mad enough to call me a cunt, then I must have made a pretty good point. It's only a pity my phone's logo doesn't light up so you can hate me from farther away while I'm minding my own business.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
9. Re:Apple is a cunt by kenboldt · 2012-10-02 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Do you honestly consider "So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt" to be a complete sentence? In this case, the ellipsis is indicating that the sentence would be finished with a description of the Android Fanboy. Said description is left off, and replaced with the ellipsis, leaving it to the reader to fill in using his imagination.
  So, if you are going to attempt to correct a grammar Nazi, please do take care to ensure you have a fucking clue what you are talking about, OK pumpkin?
10. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:10 · Score: -1
  
  So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt then the Android Fanboy is Captain Obvious
  FTFY, oh, and an ellipsis only has three dots but now I'm just getting picky.
  Sentences end with punctuation marks. How does your shoe taste?
11. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  I thought vaginas liked penises, that that was kinda the point ...
12. Re:Apple is a cunt by Coolhand2120 · 2012-10-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I picked Apple because Apple was "first" in the smartphone space
  
  You sit on a throne of lies!
13. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Original AC here...
  You pick one phrase, and ignore the rest. Fine.
  In 2008, when I got my iPhone, my smartphone choices were: (I am in Canada)
  Blackberry - Shit, no music player yet, no GPS
  Windows Mobile devices: Shit, battery life that wouldn't get me through the day
  Palm: I think some version of the Treo was available at the time (I can't remember). Had a palmpilot back in the Vx days, didn't hate it, but didn't really love it either. Despised the stylus.
  So yes, while my statement of ""Apple was "first" in the smartphone space" is not accurate, when you continue the sentence & discuss the options I wanted against the available devices, yes, it was the first smartphone that I actually wanted.
14. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  And you are the cuntiest of all cunts, you stupid fucking cunt. The butt you lick is that of Steve Jobs' dead corpse. You are an ass-eating necrophiliac cunt and you are clearly proud about that, you stupid fucking cunt. You seem to be implying something about people who hate cunt. I'm not comparing you to female genetalia. I'm saying that you, as a person, are no better than a hole that piss runs out of. Cunt. It's similar to being called a prick except it's whinier and cuntier. Cunts never understand what the word means.
  You have a long /. record which supports what I say about your cuntiness, mobile cuntsu nippon-jappo-gooko. I, OTOH have a much longer /. record supporting truth, justice, the American Way, and non-cuntiness.
  I'm a good guy and you are a cunt, you cunt. And what the hell makes you think I like Android? Apple has been a cunt since before cellphones were invented... you stupid fucking cunt.
15. Re:Apple is a cunt by scot4875 · 2012-10-02 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Read up on confirmation bias.
  There's just as many Apple idiots who hate people for choosing non-Apple devices as there are Android idiots.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
16. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  There's just as many Apple idiots who hate people for choosing non-Apple devices as there are Android idiots.
  No, there really isn't. You're thinking of the group people who are sick of the bashing.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
17. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wow!! So what exactly did I say that was sooOOoo offensive that I earned that response? Whatever it was, it must really have stung!
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
18. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, you made no point. You just whined like you usual cunty self, you ignorant cunt.
19. Re:Apple is a cunt by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, you made no point.
  
  Actually.... yep I did. Sorry!
  I do hope, at least, that the remainder of your week is good.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
20. Re:Apple is a cunt by kenboldt · 2012-10-03 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  How cute, an AC who can't read.
21. Re:Apple is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  So you did put a period at the end of that sentence and you made the text the same color as the background?
Useful by Wovel · 2012-10-02 06:56 · Score: 1

He hearing is scheduled to begin shortly before the iPhone 5 becomes the "free" phone. These lawsuits are bizarre.
Apple Hypocrasy must end (Apple must Die!) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 06:57 · Score: 0

http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=9362
Nuff said!
I am surprised... by mschaffer · 2012-10-02 06:59 · Score: 0

I am surprised that some company (I have Apple in mind) isn't trying to sue everyone for the process of suing people for copying stuff that they, themselves, have copied.
I just think it's the logical next step.
Doesn't Apple own LTE patents as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:00 · Score: 0

Perhaps the suit should be amended to include this cross complaint? Only seems fair.
And why is Apple being sued? They don't make LTE circuitry. They only buy it from other manufacturers. Shouldn't Samsung being suing THEM instead?
YA type of "cold war" by GReaToaK_2000 · 2012-10-02 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Only now it's mutually assured destruction via patent law.
The only winners are lawyers, judges and monopolies.
The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.
I knew I should have studied to be lawyer.
Sigh.
1. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Only now it's mutually assured destruction via patent law.
  The only winners are lawyers, judges and monopolies.
  The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.
  I knew I should have studied to be lawyer.
  Sigh.
  Don't forget Microsoft. In the midst of all this suing, they look to be stable. They should have a pretty decent Win8 phone by the time this all shakes out and those consumers who don't go for high drama will just buy that because it's less of a hassle.
2. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about patents and rights and who is correct or not. It is about the broken court system (at least here in the States) that allows 12 people (or whatever other number for other types of suits) to make a decision based on things they could never possibly understand in regards to those patents. There isn't a single person on those juries who understands it well enough, let alone explain it to the other people, to make an informed decision. It's just about how bad you can make your opponent look to them. In other, it is just like electing politicians. No one cares about facts, they just want the person who they can shoehorn into their own distorted, small-picture mindset.
3. Re:YA type of "cold war" by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-02 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which will be when?
4. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  MS has been one of the main patent aggressors here. It's only a matter of time before they're smacked down as well.
5. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.
  It's not Apple's fault the plastic Android turd you bought in January 2012 can't run ICS.
6. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  My Plastic android that i bought 18months ago runs ICS and JB without issue. I'm not sure where you get your information.
7. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-02 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not Apple's fault the plastic Android turd you bought in January 2012 can't run ICS.
  I got my Google Nexus S in 2011 and it runs ICS just fine?
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
8. Re:YA type of "cold war" by isorox · 2012-10-02 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  MS has been one of the main patent aggressors here. It's only a matter of time before they're smacked down as well.
  I doubt it. Remember when windows phone 7 came out, and the fanboys harped on about how good it would be.
  Now it's phone 8 instead. Microsoft are irellevent in this field, and increasingly so in most other fields. They should have bought RIM 5 years ago and had a crack at saving both companies.
9. Re:YA type of "cold war" by Threni · 2012-10-02 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  > They should have a pretty decent Win8 phone by the time this all shakes out and those consumers who don't
  > go for high drama will just buy that because it's less of a hassle.
  How is patent battles in other counties hassle for consumers of mobile phones? I don't care what lawyers in the States, Korea etc are doing. Samsung can't be that bothered about the lawsuits given that they're spending many times what they've "lost" in this case on a new fab plant in Texas primarily to make stuff for Apple!
Stop it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:15 · Score: 0

Surely Apple and Samsung aren't passing the cost of all this litigation to their customers.
1. Re:Stop it by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-10-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  No buddy, customers are driving up phone costs.
  There is no reason for today's cellphones to cost more than many desktop/laptop computers. What is happening is that customers have created a market of high demand in which they are willing to pay more for these products out of perceived value than actual value. Also consider how highly subsidized phones are by cell companies to lock you into their excessively priced multi-year contracts and you realize that the market prices are completely driven by customers wants.
  There is not a single customer out their that is getting screwed over by all these lawsuits. If a new generation of iPhone or Galaxy costs more than the last generation because of the cost of the lawsuits and settlements, and there are still millions of iTwits or gTwits lining up to buy them, then that is what drives up the cost of cellphones. Nobody forces you to buy something for more money then its worth, as a consumer you have complete control of where you money goes. Just that most people absolutely believe they need an upgraded iPhone or Galaxy when in reality there is actually very little differences between generations other than a new marketing spin. If Apple knows they can make an iPhone in a different case and have millions of people dump their 6 month old phone and re-buy the same thing then they are going to take full advantage of those people. That is capitalism 101 in a nutshell. Demand > Supply, $ Supply > $ Value.
  Finally consider that Apple and Samsung make like 2x more profit than the cost to actually produce the device, they have more than a little slush room to absorb high legal costs.
  The market bares what the market can bare, as long as people are willing to spend more for a cellphone then companies are going to charge whatever the hell they want for a phone. When people stop upgrading every 6 months and companies CAN'T cell millions of a product on its release weekend then you will see prices match closer to actual value. Just look at how the cost of PC's have bottomed out! Nobody wants them anymore and companies can't give them away.
  Consumers can be smarter by buying last generation phones when they are being liquidated by these companies, or just NOT buying phones on day one.
  
  --
  I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
evil samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:19 · Score: 0

Samsung is korean. has to be evil
1. Re:evil samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Judge Koh is Korean too. Hmmmmm *puts on tin foil hat*
2. Re:evil samsung by ballpoint · 2012-10-02 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I thought she was German. My mistake, that would have been Judge Kuh.
  
  --
  Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
ping-pong by webanish · 2012-10-02 07:20 · Score: 0

(wait, does china have a patent on *that*?)
Will it never end? by CimmerianX · 2012-10-02 07:23 · Score: 2

We need some brave and fatalistic politicians to finally revamp the entire patent system. When someone was able to patent a PB&J with the crusts cut off, for me, that's when this whole thing jumped the shark.
1. Re:Will it never end? by StripedCow · 2012-10-02 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think it will end right after weapons have been banned in the U.S.
  In other words, never.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Apologies to Jimmy Webb. by OhSoLaMeow · 2012-10-02 07:25 · Score: 1

I sue you, you sue me
We both sue too easily, too easily
To let us grow

--
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Chicken, egg. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:33 · Score: 0

This whole thing reminds me of Whale Wars.
I have never.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 07:36 · Score: 0

I have an iPhone and it will be my last. But this is something I realized the other day while talking about buying the I5.
Everytime someone says 'I am buying the iPhone 5 (no not fanboys on the internet) and I ask why the answer is:
This ones home button is broken. The batter sucks on this one. This one is too slow. I already purchased all my apps. The screen cracked. I already have a bunch of expensive accessories.
Never once, in person has someone said 'This is the best phone I have ever owned and I love it, so the next one must be better.
Im not saying, Im just saying.
1. Re:I have never.. by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-02 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because no Droid owner ever said that *eye roll*
2. Re:I have never.. by fran6gagne · 2012-10-02 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  Sure they say that, and then they can go to the store and buy a better android phone from a different manufacturer and reuse all their accessories, get back their purchased apps, etc...
Actually... by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 07:37 · Score: 1

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.
Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Actually... by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.
  Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.
  So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...
  Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.
2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.
  Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.
  So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...
  Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.
  You mean like how Andriod users root their devices & install other flavors/builds of Andriod on their devices to remove manufacturer or carrier specific crap?
  Signed, the guy that hit Captain Obvious, Captain Reality & Captain Obvious' Successor in the fucking face with a brick.
3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you can engage in potentially risky behavior violating the TOS, EULA, and DMCA, by hacking your several-hundreds-dollar device -- an act which itself could brick said device, if Apple or your provider don't decide to brick it for you -- to obtain the same level of functionality afforded OoB to owners of devices with a price point 50% less than your device.
  But, hey... you've got cool corners and fancy icons, so you're set, right?
  Captain Reality? Meet Major-General Pragmatism.
4. Re:Actually... by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.
  Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.
  So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...
  Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.
  You mean like how Andriod users root their devices & install other flavors/builds of Andriod on their devices to remove manufacturer or carrier specific crap?
  Signed, the guy that hit Captain Obvious, Captain Reality & Captain Obvious' Successor in the fucking face with a brick.
  Have you not taken your anti-angry pills this morning? Better check on yout blood pressure, sounds like it's skyrocketing!
5. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  You mean like rooting an Android phone and installing a custom ROM?
  And 50% less? What fucking world do you live in? Sure, you can get some outrageous pile of shit Andriod garbage for next to nothing, but if you want something that actually compares (and/or beats) iPhone, you're in the exact same fucking price point as the iPhone (See - Galaxy S3).
6. Re:Actually... by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...
  It "works right" out of the box for non-technical users, something sadly impossible for an Android device since you have to be technical to secure them properly.
  The technical user who wants a greater range of control merely needs to jailbreak, and then as noted actually has more options than an Android user.
  Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.
  AKA Captain Clueless...
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
7. Re:Actually... by Kielistic · 2012-10-02 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  It "works right" out of the box for non-technical users, something sadly impossible for an Android device since you have to be technical to secure them properly.
  Since when? Your use of extreme hyperbole and cognitive dissonance to defend Apple never ceases to boggle my mind.
8. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing you have to do to "secure" an Android "box" is to turn on the encryption. That's pretty much as technical as pressing a button. The rest is built-in unless you're stupid and purposely reduce the security.
  You should sign Cpt. Retard.
9. Re:Actually... by Gumbercules!! · 2012-10-02 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Anything Android can in terms of customisation?
  
  Are you drunking heavily today? So you can do this with your iPhone? I think not. Customising an iPhone means buying a new case.
10. Re:Actually... by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  So you can do this with your iPhone?
  With a jailbroken iPhone, of course you can.
  Can you customize the built in mail client on Android with 10 lines of code?
  Customising an iPhone means buying a new case.
  Yeah we also have more of those too.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
11. Re:Actually... by mjwx · 2012-10-02 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?
  iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.
  Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.
  So... how many custom IOS ROMS are there.
  
  Captain Reality has been out ranked by General Reality.
  
  Also, they were both reminded that an Android users doesn't have to break anything to get something like AirDroid working.
  Signed
  Common F. Sense.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
12. Re:Actually... by platosearwax · 2012-10-03 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  And 50% less? What fucking world do you live in? Sure, you can get some outrageous pile of shit Andriod garbage for next to nothing, but if you want something that actually compares (and/or beats) iPhone, you're in the exact same fucking price point as the iPhone (See - Galaxy S3).
  Admittedly I am in one of the more expensive countries in the world (Norway) but you did ask what world I live in. Just checked and you can get the 16GB GS3 right now for about the equivalent of $120 (699 Norwegian Kroner)plus a year contract (I got my GS3 three weeks ago for a deal of about $80). The newly released 16GB iPhone 5 is going for about $400 (2490 Norwegian Kroner) plus the year contract. So, yeah, far more than 50% less, at least here.
13. Re:Actually... by Keen+Anthony · 2012-10-03 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't a reason for custom iOS ROMs as there is for custom Android ROMs. iOS doesn't come loaded with bloatware. I'd need that custom Android ROM just so I can cut the bloat that Motorola and Verizon added to stock Android, maybe even remove anything else the carrier added to handicap the phone. This is where Apple is superior as a company. It was the only company that could strong-arm the carriers to keep their grimy hands off the phone. I jailbroke my iPhone once. I don't recall being able to totally change the UI. I think the Android users still edge out when it comes to customization.
Re:Apologies to Lionel Richie by fran6gagne · 2012-10-02 07:42 · Score: 1

Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
That’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.
I had a dream, I had an awesome dream.
People in the park,
Playin' games in the dark.
And what they played was a masquerade,
From behind the walls of doubt,
A voice was crying out.
Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
That’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.
As we go down life’s lonesome highway,
Seems the hardest thing to do,
Is to find a friend or two.
That helping hand, someone who understands.
You’ve got someone there to sue, "I’ll show you."
Ooo-oooo.
Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
Aw, that’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.
(So you think you know the answer, oh, no.)
Well, the whole world’s got you dancin'.
(That’s right, I’m telling you.)
(It’s time to start believin', oh, yes,)
(Believe in who you are,
(You are a shining star.)
Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
Aw, that’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.
Sue it together, naturally.
If its legit, go for it by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-10-02 07:46 · Score: 2

If Samsung's claims are legit then they should pursue this as fully as possible.
Apple has created a hostile market that inhibits innovation by suing anybody with anything that resembles Apple's IP. While Samsung obviously lifted some design cues from iPhone, overall I don't think anything Samsung has done would make an Apple iPhone user switch over to a Samsung Android phone, so I thought the Apple lawsuit was petty and vindictive. Apple is doing a better job of moving people to Android then Samsung is capable of. Apple has to realize that there are at least 3 to 1 people that hate Apple and everything they do which means that Android will ALWAYS be a larger platform than Apple, just like Windows was always a larger platform than Mac. Apple never cared when Microsoft lifted UI designs, so why should they care when Samsung does the same thing.
So, if Samsung has valid claims then Apple should get a taste of their own medicine. Banning iPhone 5 sales, even for a few days during the holiday season would be a big blow to Apple, and if Samsung's claims are found justified and Apple has also infringed on other people's patents, then maybe people will wake up and see Apple for what they are.
However I have the distinct feeling that Samsung's claims are thin and flimsy and more out of spite and pettiness. I fully support legal action where it's justified, but the arguments between two petulant parties does nobody any good.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:If its legit, go for it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  Apple never cared when Microsoft lifted UI designs, so why should they care when Samsung does the same thing.
  1. Because Microsoft is U.S.-based, and can more easily lobby (a.k.a. bribe) the system.
2. Re:If its legit, go for it by Wraithlyn · 2012-10-02 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Apple never cared when Microsoft lifted UI designs
  They most certainly did.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
  
  --
  "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
My Galaxy Tab 10.1 was smiling this morning by djl4570 · 2012-10-02 08:10 · Score: 2

I wonder how this patent swarm compares to the sewing machine patent swarm. Probably worse because the sewing machine compaines never thought about patenting things like rounded corners.

Opera/9.80 (Android 3.2; Linux; Opera Tablet/ADR-1207201819; U; en) Presto/2.10.254 Version/12.00
1. Re:My Galaxy Tab 10.1 was smiling this morning by StripedCow · 2012-10-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Talking about rounded corners, Samsung should just make 2 models. One with rounded corners, and one without rounded corners.
  Then, on their website they should let you "design" your own phone.
  This then shifts liability to the end-user, turning this entire thing into a non-issue.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
FYI - Google sails past Microsoft by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 08:11 · Score: 0

Daily News, Oct. 2: Google sailed past Microsoft on Monday to become the world's second biiggest technology company.
The milestone reflects both the rise of internet advertising and search - an area wwhere the two giants compete - and the decline of the PC industry, which Microsoft dominates.
Google's market capitalization hit $249.9 billion at the close, just edging out Microsoft's tally of $247.2 billion. Both are still behind Apple, which comes in at a weighty $618.1 billion. Google's search engine holds about 66% of the search market, far exceeding Microsoft's 16% share, according to comscore.
Elizabeth Lazarowitz, with News Wire Services.
Re:Apologies to Lionel Richie by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:17 · Score: 0

I'd rather eat suet pudding.
Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by tgibbs · 2012-10-02 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm's license to Samsung's patents covered Qualcomm's customers. So Apple used Qualcomm's chips under the understanding that they were fully licensed. But apparently desperate because of Apple's many claims related to Samsung's copying, Samsung attempted to cancel Qualcomm's license as it pertains to Apple. This is of doubtful legality, as licensing of standards-essential patents is supposed to be nondiscriminatory. But it gives Samsung some basis for countersuit, which probably helps them with investors, at least for the moment.
1. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by chowdahhead · 2012-10-02 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Patent exhaustion seems to be a fairly gray area of law, and Samsung seems to have a case from a certain point of view. Apple isn't an end user or a retailer, on which historical precedents are mostly based. They are another manufacturer that incorporates the IP into a product. Of course, we don't know the details of the Qualcomm-Samsung agreement. The terms could be very specific to Qualcomm as a chip producer and Samsung as a customer of Qualcomm. The license fee that Qualcomm may be favorable because of those circumstances. It's also possible that Samsung licenses some tech from Qualcomm as part of the agreement. To assume that the fee Qualcomm pays is the same price that Apple would pay--and does pay in the cost of a chip--really isn't accurate because the two don't share the same license relationship with Samsung.
  Also, according to this, the not-to-sue promise was a private contract, not a license; I think this was mentioned on Groklaw awhile back. And if this case was a slam dunk for Apple, I don't think they would have been after Samsung to get a license for the 3G patents in the first place.
2. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by tgibbs · 2012-10-02 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that a license is a contract to use somebody else's IP, that seem a pretty fine distinction, but IANAL, so perhaps it makes some kind of legal sense. Perhaps the agreement included provision for arbitrary termination by Samsung. In that case, the question arises whether Qualcomm disclosed this to Apple. If not, it seems like Apple might have a cause against Qualcomm if they happen to lose to Samsung.
3. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Patent exhaustion seems to be a fairly gray area of law, and Samsung seems to have a case from a certain point of view. Apple isn't an end user or a retailer, on which historical precedents are mostly based. They are another manufacturer that incorporates the IP into a product.
  
  And what is Motorola, LG, HTC, Nokia, RIMM etc in your analysis? If Samsung can require Apple get a separate license, they can force any other mobile manufacturer to do so. But they haven't. This move seems clearly a reaction to Apple's lawsuit.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
4. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by the_B0fh · 2012-10-02 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  If this is successful, Motorola/LG/HTC/Nokia/RIMM will basically be screwed as well - can be sued over the same patents *ANY TIME SAMSUNG FEELS LIKE IT*
5. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by JDG1980 · 2012-10-02 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  And what is Motorola, LG, HTC, Nokia, RIMM etc in your analysis? If Samsung can require Apple get a separate license, they can force any other mobile manufacturer to do so. But they haven't. This move seems clearly a reaction to Apple's lawsuit.
  How is that legally relevant? Patents aren't like trademarks: there is no "use-or-lose" requirement and no obligation to pursue all infringers equally. Maybe there should be, but this isn't how the law works now. Samsung is completely within its legal rights to play hardball only with the company that is causing trouble for them, and let others go. Besides, how do you know that Motorola, LG, HTC, et al. haven't paid license fees or signed cross-license agreements?
6. Re:Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license by UnknowingFool · 2012-10-02 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  How is that legally relevant? Patents aren't like trademarks: there is no "use-or-lose" requirement and no obligation to pursue all infringers equally. Maybe there should be, but this isn't how the law works now.
  
  Um? The doctrine of latches says otherwise. If Motorola, HTC, and whoever is using Samsung tech without licensing (and Samsung knows about it), how can Samsung claim that they are harmed when Apple does not license. Samsung cannot claim loss or damages.
  If you leave your car unlocked in a public place and you don't care who borrows it until someone you don't like borrows it, then can you claim that the car was stolen? In this case the patents are in items and cannot be retrieved or recalled.
  
  Samsung is completely within its legal rights to play hardball only with the company that is causing trouble for them, and let others go. Besides, how do you know that Motorola, LG, HTC, et al. haven't paid license fees or signed cross-license agreeme
  No they are not. Samsung must follow the rules of law like all other companies. One of the rules is agreements must be enforced. If Samsung's agreement with Qualcomm clearly calls for Qualcomm as the middleman, then Samsung has no case. Several courts have decided this situation with some 3G/UTMS FRAND patents that Samsung owned. As for other companies, that would be up to a side to present. If I were Apple, the first I would ask would be for licenses that Motorola, LG, HTC have with Samsung regarding the same patents.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Does none of those things by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 09:44 · Score: 0

Yes, you can engage in potentially risky behavior violating the TOS, EULA, and DMCA
It does none of those things. Jailbreaking has also been explicitly declared to be legal.
So there went all the legs you had to stand on. All you can do is wobble about...
But, hey... you've got cool corners and fancy icons
And way more quality applications and a greater ability to hack existing applications, yes.
Oh and far greater battery life since your OS doesn't give a fig if the phone can last two days on a charge.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Does none of those things by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ehh..., there are not a few 'issues' with your magic iphone5, like purple flare. Apple is falling back on their standard "it's how you're holding it" excuse on that one... http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/tech/mobile/iphone-5-purple-photos/index.html Scuffgate, battery drain on older iphones when updated to ios6, there are more issues, but I'm getting bored of the tennis game here.
  I'll leave you with this one. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/10/02/android-could-soon-overtake-apple-in-tablet-market/ No wonder apple defenders get so crazed here, I think the future is scary for them.
It's Samsung's fault by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2012-10-02 09:55 · Score: 1

not to list their shares in any of the U.S. stock exchanges.

--
New Economic Perspectives
Another Android user pretty-boy by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 10:29 · Score: 1

Scuffgate
It's pretty funny that Apple Haters like yourself claim Apple users are all about fashion, when Apple users care far less about scuffs on a device than Android users seem to.
Doubly funny when Android users seem to prefer cheap plastic to real metal. I guess they really ARE afraid of scuffs!
Also Apple people don't care who sells more than who. They just enjoy what they have. Enjoy your McDonalds-class devices.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by SternisheFan · 2012-10-02 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Google just surpassed Microsoft...
  
  Daily News, Oct. 2: Google sailed past Microsoft on Monday to become the world's second biggest technology company.
  The milestone reflects both the rise of internet advertising and search - an area where the two giants compete - and the decline of the PC industry, which Microsoft dominates.
  Google's market capitalization hit $249.9 billion at the close, just edging out Microsoft's tally of $247.2 billion. Both are still behind Apple, which comes in at a weighty $618.1 billion. Google's search engine holds about 66% of the search market, far exceeding Microsoft's 16% share, according to ComScore.
  Elizabeth Lazarowitz, with News Wire Services.
  I don't hate much in life except for bullies. I do root for the underdog in any fight. Apple may have seen it's zenith already, there are many up and comers in the game now. Or 'war', if that's what Jobs wanted, Apple's got one now for real. Let's have this discussion again a year from now, and the above numbers may be a lot closer. In a war, you lose some battles like Samsung has recently. They just won one. Its going to be interesting, and Apple is ceded more ground recently. As my Dad used to say, "We shall see what we shall see."
2. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen the whining when Android got that stupid image app? Thousands of angry Apple retards whined about how Android users were gonna "ruin" the thing, as if there was any real difference between the two phones other than one is locked down and one isn't.
  They "enjoy what they have" because they don't give a shit what they have, because there's a shiny Apple and that's all the average Apple idiot cares about.
3. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by scot4875 · 2012-10-02 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for contributing so much to this thread that started out as an obvious pissing contest. Your dick waving has truly made Slashdot a better place.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
4. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen the whining when Android got that stupid image app?
  Not really, I was not one of them. Why would I care? I don't even use insatgram myself.
  However the "whining" could not be nearly so loud as the vast chants of "in your face" I witnessed from Android fanatics.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for contributing so much to this thread that started out as an obvious pissing contest.
  And you read it because...
  I don't read things that I wouldn't find I could contribute in. You can't even wave anything apparently, so you have the dubious honor of contributing even less than myself, not even a sense of bravado.
  Basically, you lose two turns on the internet.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
6. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  Let's have this discussion again a year from now, and the above numbers may be a lot closer
  I really, really doubt that considering you are looking at an artificially lowered Apple market cap and the fact that Google doesn't sell much hardware directly AND they have been cut out of Apple's map equation so there's not even a licensing fee or ad revenue from that going forward. Google also gets very little from a primary Android tablet maker, Amazon since Amazon gets the app store revenue from most of those devices.
  I'm perfectly willing to wait a year or three because Apple is still playing the long game they way pretty much no other player is. But in the end I don't even care how the respective companies do personally, I will use whatever I enjoy and for the moment that is still iOS devices. Should the need arise I would not care if the market dictated I move into Android or some other platform, I just can't see it happening anytime soon.
  Also Google may have passed Microsoft at the moment but I think people are severely underestimating Microsoft's comeback potential. They can frankenstein their app market to a heathy state, they can bully device makers to support them. They can pound on advertising to draw people back into using Windows 8 , tablet and phone... and can leverage the large and fanatical XBox community to do so. If they hadn't had that stupid move of tossing old Windows Phone 7 users in the garbage they would even now be further underway...
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
7. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  Just browsed comments on Instagram for Android news on a few sites and found neither of this sentiments. On /., for example, I found just 2 comments that can be stretched to fit the description: 1 2
  I think you're both goddamn delusional fanatics getting heated up over a fucking phone as if your religion (or your mom) was insulted. Get over it.
8. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by mjwx · 2012-10-02 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Or 'war', if that's what Jobs wanted, Apple's got one now for real. Let's have this discussion again a year from now, and the above numbers may be a lot closer. In a war, you lose some battles like Samsung has recently. They just won one. Its going to be interesting, and Apple is ceded more ground recently. As my Dad used to say, "We shall see what we shall see."
  Apple's "victory" may be nothing but a Pyrrhic victory. They haven't done any real damage to Samsung and the actual punishment has been postponed until after an appeal, Samsung have also put in a motion for a mistrial, with Velvin Hogan shooting his mouth off at every opportunity a mistrial may be incredibly easy to get (the basics of it: he instructed the other jurors to ignore the concept of prior art). I bet Apple is quietly wishing Hogan had of kept his mouth shut.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
9. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not even heated up, are you really this delusional yourself? Wow. I guess people like you really can get crazy about a phone.
  http://www.androidpit.com/instagram-for-android-404116
10. Re:Another Android user pretty-boy by SternisheFan · 2012-10-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, sir. It's been fun, you have a good one. :-)
The sad state of technical understanding by SuperKendall · 2012-10-02 15:07 · Score: 1

The only thing you have to do to "secure" an Android "box" is to turn on the encryption. That's pretty much as technical as pressing a button.
Really?
Go up to any average mom, hand her an Android device and tell her to "secure" it. You really think she will find and press that button?
Of course not. So many people on Slashdot are just utterly ignorant of what is a reasonable exception of the non-technical user.
There are a lot of software fixes I have done in my day that were the equivalent of "just press that button". But I got paid money to do so because I had the understanding there was even a button to press and the experience to know where it was (metaphorically speaking).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:The sad state of technical understanding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  The average mom can't turn on the WiFi either without being shown first either.
  We handed an iPad to one of Canada's (province level) ministers today. He entered his password at least 10 times on the device, successfully. 5 minutes later he had forgotten that and half the instructions the technician had just given him. Took an hour to reset the thing I think. Couldn't get Bluetooth to work right on the first try either.
  I'm speaking from experience, with thousands of users over multiple years, so fuck off with your ignorance and "in my day" smug crap. The point is that you need to train people, and hard, otherwise they'll just do the most basic functions. And now, younger people growing up with devices pretty much master them. Problem solved.
___ by lennier1 · 2012-10-02 20:34 · Score: 1

Just nuke the patent system sky high and put all patent lawyers against the wall. By now that's probably the only way to ever get out of this fucking mess.