It's my expectation that in three to five years...
I agree with their view and disagree with it. I agree that wearable computers are the future but I disagree with their timeline - I believe "three to five years" is an enormously, overly aggressive timeframe.
First of all, project Glass is coming to market next year at a price of $1400 (iirc) and is only available for developers (currently - which I would imagine means the price is as low as possible to help get developers involved rather than to generate profits). This is already one year of their three-to-five timeframe eaten up. While I realize that price will come down as the tech gets better and once it's made available to the general public economies of scale will also help drive the price down, I believe there's still far too big a difference between "price the tech has to be sold at to make it a viable business" and "price most consumers are willing to pay". So, first of all, I believe the price is a significant barrier and it will take longer than three to five years to get the price into a realm where the average consumer feels comfortable paying for the tech.
Second, and more importantly, people have zero experience with the interface. Smartphones were set to explode because people a) understood phones and b) understood computers so the marriage of the two as a technology as easy to understand and required minimal learning to use. It was easy for the mass market to pick up and go. For something like project Glass, I cannot see the average person easily figuring out how to use it. Now, understand, this is absolutely independent of how easy it actually is to use - it might be the easiest, most intuitive thing in the world to use but people won't feel that it's easy to use because they've never used anything like it which will serve as a barrier to adoption. People intuitively knew how to use a phone and knew how to use a computer so selling them a phone that was a computer was easy. Selling them a set of glasses that is also a computer will not be an easy sell. Thus, there needs to be a significant amount of effort spent making that usage scenario _feel_ easy and intuitive to the average consumer before they will actually pick up the device and that will only happen over time. It will happen, eventually, but it will take time.
All in all, I agree that wearable computer devices will become the norm but I think that "three to five years" is an enormously optimistic timeframe. There will be early adopters and the like but it will take at least a decade, probably a bit longer, before it solidly penetrates the mass market and becomes "normal".
This is 100% a copy/paste post ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2947841&cid=40498491 though there may be others as well). How many times do you intend on posting it? Just curious. I would say you're just karma-whoring (since you were modded +5 previous) but you're posing AC so I'm not entirely sure of your motive.
I won't link to references - feel free to Google it for yourself. The summary, however, is this: Samsung and Motorola and various others invented technologies that they submitted to an industry standard for the cell phone business. By submitting it for inclusion in the industry standard, they a) helped establish an industry standard for all cell phone makers to use and b) agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms.
Now, FRAND licensing terms are simple - the patent holder _MUST_ license the technology to _ANYONE AND EVERYONE_ who wants to license it at Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory rates. They do not have the freedom to not license the technology to a competitor and they do not have the freedom to set whatever price they want for the patent - they are required, by the FRAND agreement, to license to everyone for a fair and reasonable rate. While this may result in a lower cost-per-license fee, it is made up for in volume due to the fact that everyone participating in the industry pretty much must license the patent since it's an industry standard. It's a tradeoff of a guaranteed, long term revenue stream versus control of the patent.
Samsung and Motorola are currently demanding higher-than-reasonable rates (which is not Fair and Reasonable) from Apple (which is not Non-Discriminatory) and are thus in violation of their FRAND agreements. It is why various trade organizations are beginning the process of investigating both Samsung and Motorola for abuse of FRAND patents (for example, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-29/google-said-to-face-u-dot-s-dot-probe-over-motorola-patents ).
Nope. Not Apple nor any company related to Apple nor any of Apple's competitors nor any company related to Apple's competitors.
You're literally the only person posting on this story taking Apples side.
That's because Slashdot has been overrun with an overwhelming sea of Apple hatred that blinds people to the truth of situations (such as this - Apple is somehow the villain while Samsung and Motorola abuse FRAND patents...).
You switched to an Android device because Apple stops supporting technology after _THREE_ years??? Are you joking?
Say whatever you want about Apple but they support their tech a HELL of a lot longer than Android manufacturers who often aren't utilizing the latest version of Android the day the device hits the shelves, let along a couple months later and most certainly not after _THREE YEARS_.
And before anyone points it out, I realize that's not Google's fault - it's the manufacturers - but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.
Ignoring the fact that your analogy is completely of-base, please educate yourself on FRAND patents since that is a key issue in many of these cases.
Samsung and Motorola have offered some of their patented technologies for inclusion in industry standards. In return for being included in these standards, they have agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms. This means they _MUST_ license the patents to _ANYONE AND EVERYONE_ under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory rates. They are _REQUIRED_ to do so. This means they will earn a lower license fee but they will make up for it in volume since everyone who wants to participate in the industry effectively must license the patented technology since it is the industry standard. By agreeing to FRAND terms, they guarantee an income stream since everyone must license the technology but, in return, they lose the ability to pick and chose who can license the technology and they lose the ability to set whatever license rate they wish - the _MUST_ license the technology and it _MUST_ be at Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory rates.
Non-FRAND patents, such as those utilized by Apple in these cases, however, are not encumbered by such requirements. The owner of a non-FRAND patent is under no obligation to license the patent and under no obligation to license the patent at a fair and reasonable rate.
Samsung and Motorola are forsaking their FRAND obligations by specifically targeting Apple with unfair and unreasonable licensing demands, which is anti-competitive behaviour and a breach of their FRAND obligations.
Apple, on the other hand, are simply defending their patent rights. You can disagree with whether or not they should have been granted those patents all you want but the fact is a) they were granted those patents and b) Apple did not submit those patents for inclusion in an industry standard and are not bound by FRAND obligations.
There's nothing in FRAND that says they have to give it away...
Nobody has claimed Apple wants the licenses for free. They have claimed that they want them for Fair and Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory rates. As is required by a FRAND agreement.
The FRAND terms that *most* of the industry seems to have agreed on is "you don't sue us, we don't sue you".
That's not even vaguely true. Not even a little bit. The terms that most companies use is "we would rather not spend cash so how about we work out a cross-licensing deal for some of our patents". Apple, on the other hand a) has plenty of cash to pay licensing fees and b) would rather develop a competitive edge over their competition that differentiates them. Thus, they don't want to cross license - they just want to cut a check _AS IS THEIR RIGHT_. The amount being asked by Samsung and Motorola are what they consider to be unfair and unreasonable and are inherently discriminatory since they specifically target Apple.
I thought I made that clear - they're abusing FRAND patents. In my humble opinion, any company that abuses FRAND patents is the worst sort of offender, truly intent on stifling competition within an industry and guilty of the worst sort of anti-competitive behaviour deserving of swift and severe punishment from whatever trade organization can take action against them. If a company agrees to include their patented technology in an industry standard under FRAND terms and then renegs on those FRAND obligations, they are doing more harm to competition within an industry any any company possibly could. That, imho, makes them the true villains.
You do realize that as a Slashdot reader, you are not "the norm" when it comes to technology. You know that only Apple makes the iPad and thus Samsung does not sell an iPad.
Can you say with honesty and certainty that your mom or your dear aunt Mildred or your sister know that as well? Is it possible that the average consumer might, just might, walk into a store hoping to buy " that iPad thing", see a device that looks remarkably like the device they see in the commercials and what their friends have, and ask the clerk for it and plop down their money and head home with, what turns out to be a Samsung Galaxy because virtually everything about the product, including the packaging, is designed to look like the iPad and they, unlike you and I, don't know that Samsung doesn't make an iPad? Is that a possibility?
Judge Koh isn't protecting poor people like you - she's protecting poor people like your mom, your dear aunt Mildred, and your sister, who don't know technology as well as you do and don't know that there's a difference between the two devices that look identical.
Massive pet peeve that I know many Slashdotters disagree with but APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL.
A patent troll is a non-practicing entity who's sole business revolves around generating profits from patent lawsuits. They make nothing and sell nothing.
APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL. Apple is a practicing entity - they make and sell products (to say the least). They also spend a lot of money on research and development and thus garner numerous patents on the technologies that they invent. Sometimes, when they feel other companies have infringed those patents, they defend them up to and including via lawsuits. That does not make a company a patent troll, no matter how much you hate the company nor how much you hate the patent system.
I realize people hate Apple - knock yourself out if you do. Go for it. I realize people hate the patent system - again, knock yourself out if you do. Go for it. But don't let your hatred of Apple cloud the issues and muddy the arguments against the patent system. Claiming Apple is a patent troll makes it harder to discuss the problems with the patent system, one of which includes _actual_ patent trolls abusing the system while actually producing nothing of value for society. Regardless of what you think of Apple, they actually invest money in R&D. They actually produce products. They actually DO something. They are not a patent troll. They are just defending their patent rights.
If you don't think Apple should have patents on the technologies they've developed, fine. Argue that. That is a discussion that can be had but don't confuse the issue by claiming they are something they are not. APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL.
*As an addendum, neither is Microsoft nor Motorola nor Samsung nor HTC and so on and so on. Companies that actually do something are not patent trolls, regardless of what they do via the patent system. This isn't just about Apple but it's most often a claim levied against Apple. Feel free to replace "Apple" with whatever practicing entity you wish lest you think I'm just being an Apple fanboy defending Apple. I'm not - I'm sick of people claiming a company is a patent troll because they defend their patents. Defending your patents doesn't make you a patent troll. Enforcing patents as a way or business and a sole means of revenue makes you a patent troll. And those companies should be reviled.
Stuff like this makes me want to buy a Samsung device right now, simply out of spite for these agressive, bullshit patent practices that limit competition and my choices as a consumer.
Why? You want to support a company that abuses their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition.
Seriously, it boggles my mind that people are so utterly blinded by their hatred of Apple that they fail to recognize that Samsung (and Motorola) are utterly abusing their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition in the mobile market in the absolute worst possible way imaginable.
But, hey, you feel free to paint Apple as the villain here and rally support for the true villains. That koolaid must taste real good.
Look, I'm an Apple fanboy and all but that's just a stupid, moronic question designed to inflame. Come on. Is it the beginning of the end? No! At the worst - at the very worst, if things go as horribly wrong as possible for Samsung (and Motorola and HTC) as one could imagine and as well for Apple as people fear, it would be the beginning of companies being forced to designed around Apple's patents to make phones that look different and function differently than the iPhone and iPad or to pay a forced licensing fee to utilize the function in past and future devices. If anyone is so daft as to think that means "the end of Android" then they are idiots.
Seriously, it's not rocket science. I know it's fun to post stories designed to generate conversation and to fire people up but let's not be stupid. Contrary to what anyone (including the late Steve Jobs) thinks, none of this is going to spell the end of any company or platform. At the worst, it's going to force a company to pay some money and/or design around the patent. That's it. That's all.
This is such a glorious example of how Slashdot readers just don't get it sometimes. Let's see:
Yes, what we need -- more facebook integration.
Yes. There are literally 100's of millions of Facebook users and I suspect they will happily take more Facebook integration with their phone. Just because you (or many Slashdotters) hate Facebook doesn't mean that the vast (VAST) majority of people out there also hate it.
What Apple needs to do is start figuring out how to get themselves enterprise-friendly without losing their consumer market. Enterprises buy stuff in such large chunks that a few good contracts are a lot better than lines around the building of hipsters.
Absolutely right. Except the iPhone is, by a wide margin, the most successful smartphone on the market making Apple the most successful company in the world while RIM, with it's focus on enterprise, is nearly dead. So maybe not so right after all.
Seriously, Slashdotters have such a strong sense of "I know how to do it right and they clearly don't so let me spell it out for you..." Um, Apple is _THE_ most successful company on the planet, by a wide margin. They have figured out how to do it. Perhaps your roadmap to success isn't quite as good as you think it is given that your roadmap to success sounds a HELL of a lot like "focus on enterprise like RIM". You know, RIM, the company that is desperately cutting overhead in an effort to save their company from utter ruin because that's where they're headed.
Look, Apple isn't perfect and there are things that they can do better in various ways but I think they've proven, beyond any possible shadow of a doubt, that their approach works a hell of a lot better than your suggested approach. Focusing on consumers is a roadmap to success. Getting consumers behind your product gets your product into businesses. They've proven this. Why Slashdotters cannot see this is a mystery to me.
I've had an iOS device for many years now and I can literally count on one hand the number of times I _NEEDED_ Flash. And, as time goes by, that number is not growing - any website with even a vague hint of what's going on offers an alternative to Flash because they know cutting out the rather large mobile market is a bad idea.
The only real impact the lack of Flash has had is that I don't see Flash advertising and, believe me when I say, I don't miss one second of it.
That's the thing, when Jobs said it should die, many agreed, but to not (at the time) offer an alternative, wasn't the best way to handle it.
Yes it was. It was absolutely the best way to handle it. Offering an alternative would have just dragged things out and offered a subpar product. Say whatever you want about Jobs but he was not afraid to cut the cord if he felt that a technology had run its course and when he's done so, it's made a drastic shift happen quickly. Flash (on mobile devices) is but one example of that and I, for one, am glad for it. Flash sucks. Despite what some people will say, Flash sucks. Hardcore. It dying out faster rather than slower is a good thing.
I find it amusing that the Nexus Q (you know, the incomplete device that requires hookup to another device to be of any value) costs more than the Nexus 7 (you know, the complete device that doesn't require anything else). Methinks one of these devices is going to do quite well in the market and the other will do less well...
Copyrights are out of control in as much the length of a copyright is simply insane now. I have no issue with a rights holder defending their copyright but I do not agree with life+50 (or 70, depending on the country) because that is insanity and abuse of the intent of the system.
Apple are the worst offenders and is the most anti-competitive company in the industry, they're worse than Microsoft.
Totally!!
Well, except for the fact that they have nothing approaching a monopoly in any industry in which they operate and consumers have the easy choice to go with alternatives should they dislike Apple's offerings whereas Microsoft had ~95% of the desktop market at the time the anti-trust cases occurred (and still have ~90% of the market).
Other than that, you're right - totally worse than Microsoft....
I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to a troll AC but here we go.
a) "Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
One of many articles available from a two second Google search - feel free to search on your own to find one more to your liking, if you wish. Here's the relevant section:
"Reuters reports that at one point during the hearing, Koh held both an iPad and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 above her head and asked Samsungâ(TM)s lawyers if they could tell which was which at a distance of only 10 feet. âoeNot at this distance your honor,â said Kathleen Sullivan, a Samsung attorney that may need to get her eyes checked. The judge asked the question again, this time of the entire Samsung legal team. âoeCan any of Samsungâ(TM)s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?â she asked. After a moment or two, one of the team got the right answer."
So, with a 50/50 chance of randomly picking the right device, Samsung's own legal team showed no confidence in picking the right one and the _entire legal team_ had to take a moment to pick one. I stand by my statement.
b) Here's a bunch of pics that shows how they are TOTALLY THE SAME. Nope, you need a microscope to find a difference. "Entire design" copied, right. Except for all the parts that aren't.
Someone else in the thread posted a very clear outline of how clearly and obviously Samsung has altered their designs to match the iPad. I won't bother regurgitating the information - I'll just link to their informative post.
c) Did you know that US is not the whole world? Other courts thrown out Apple's design claims.
First, what does that have to do with anything. Second, you do know that there are countries that have enforced Apple's design patent. Introduce yourself to Germany - Samsung altered their infringing design, to avoid an infringement conviction, to keep the product on the shelves.
I know I'm in the minority here in that I have no problems with patents (copyrights, on the other hand, are out of control...). I do, however, have a significant problem with patents being wielded by non-practicing entities. Patents being claimed and enforced by Microsoft or Apple or Google or Motorola or Samsung or whatever other company who actually does something is fine. I know many people here are outraged when a company actually enforces their patent and calls the company in question a patent troll but the truth is they are simply enforcing their rights as a patent holder, as is their right. That's the point of patent protection and I'm fine with that.
Non-practicing entities, however, aren't protecting their intellectual property. They aren't protecting their innovative edge over their competitors. They are leaches. That's it. That's all.
While I don't pretend to think that fixing the problem would be simple, it would be nice to require patent holders to actually be actively using the patent to be permitted to enforce it. Yes, I realize that becomes complex for patents that are granted before the innovated product comes to market but I think that's not an insurmountable detail to overcome. The point remains the same - companies that aren't practicing entities should have no authority or ability to enforce patents. That would solve so many problems across so many industries.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my expectation that in three to five years...
I agree with their view and disagree with it. I agree that wearable computers are the future but I disagree with their timeline - I believe "three to five years" is an enormously, overly aggressive timeframe.
First of all, project Glass is coming to market next year at a price of $1400 (iirc) and is only available for developers (currently - which I would imagine means the price is as low as possible to help get developers involved rather than to generate profits). This is already one year of their three-to-five timeframe eaten up. While I realize that price will come down as the tech gets better and once it's made available to the general public economies of scale will also help drive the price down, I believe there's still far too big a difference between "price the tech has to be sold at to make it a viable business" and "price most consumers are willing to pay". So, first of all, I believe the price is a significant barrier and it will take longer than three to five years to get the price into a realm where the average consumer feels comfortable paying for the tech.
Second, and more importantly, people have zero experience with the interface. Smartphones were set to explode because people a) understood phones and b) understood computers so the marriage of the two as a technology as easy to understand and required minimal learning to use. It was easy for the mass market to pick up and go. For something like project Glass, I cannot see the average person easily figuring out how to use it. Now, understand, this is absolutely independent of how easy it actually is to use - it might be the easiest, most intuitive thing in the world to use but people won't feel that it's easy to use because they've never used anything like it which will serve as a barrier to adoption. People intuitively knew how to use a phone and knew how to use a computer so selling them a phone that was a computer was easy. Selling them a set of glasses that is also a computer will not be an easy sell. Thus, there needs to be a significant amount of effort spent making that usage scenario _feel_ easy and intuitive to the average consumer before they will actually pick up the device and that will only happen over time. It will happen, eventually, but it will take time.
All in all, I agree that wearable computer devices will become the norm but I think that "three to five years" is an enormously optimistic timeframe. There will be early adopters and the like but it will take at least a decade, probably a bit longer, before it solidly penetrates the mass market and becomes "normal".
This is 100% a copy/paste post ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2947841&cid=40498491 though there may be others as well). How many times do you intend on posting it? Just curious. I would say you're just karma-whoring (since you were modded +5 previous) but you're posing AC so I'm not entirely sure of your motive.
Then virtually nobody in the tech industry makes anything, by your definition.
I won't link to references - feel free to Google it for yourself. The summary, however, is this: Samsung and Motorola and various others invented technologies that they submitted to an industry standard for the cell phone business. By submitting it for inclusion in the industry standard, they a) helped establish an industry standard for all cell phone makers to use and b) agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms.
Now, FRAND licensing terms are simple - the patent holder _MUST_ license the technology to _ANYONE AND EVERYONE_ who wants to license it at Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory rates. They do not have the freedom to not license the technology to a competitor and they do not have the freedom to set whatever price they want for the patent - they are required, by the FRAND agreement, to license to everyone for a fair and reasonable rate. While this may result in a lower cost-per-license fee, it is made up for in volume due to the fact that everyone participating in the industry pretty much must license the patent since it's an industry standard. It's a tradeoff of a guaranteed, long term revenue stream versus control of the patent.
Samsung and Motorola are currently demanding higher-than-reasonable rates (which is not Fair and Reasonable) from Apple (which is not Non-Discriminatory) and are thus in violation of their FRAND agreements. It is why various trade organizations are beginning the process of investigating both Samsung and Motorola for abuse of FRAND patents (for example, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-29/google-said-to-face-u-dot-s-dot-probe-over-motorola-patents ).
I agreed with everything up until that last sentence.
Do you work for Apple or something?
Nope. Not Apple nor any company related to Apple nor any of Apple's competitors nor any company related to Apple's competitors.
You're literally the only person posting on this story taking Apples side.
That's because Slashdot has been overrun with an overwhelming sea of Apple hatred that blinds people to the truth of situations (such as this - Apple is somehow the villain while Samsung and Motorola abuse FRAND patents...).
I work for Google...
So you're clearly not biased at all...
You switched to an Android device because Apple stops supporting technology after _THREE_ years??? Are you joking?
Say whatever you want about Apple but they support their tech a HELL of a lot longer than Android manufacturers who often aren't utilizing the latest version of Android the day the device hits the shelves, let along a couple months later and most certainly not after _THREE YEARS_.
And before anyone points it out, I realize that's not Google's fault - it's the manufacturers - but to state you switched from an iOS device to an Android device because of "lack of support" is absolutely laughable.
Ignoring the fact that your analogy is completely of-base, please educate yourself on FRAND patents since that is a key issue in many of these cases.
Samsung and Motorola have offered some of their patented technologies for inclusion in industry standards. In return for being included in these standards, they have agreed to license those patents under FRAND terms. This means they _MUST_ license the patents to _ANYONE AND EVERYONE_ under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory rates. They are _REQUIRED_ to do so. This means they will earn a lower license fee but they will make up for it in volume since everyone who wants to participate in the industry effectively must license the patented technology since it is the industry standard. By agreeing to FRAND terms, they guarantee an income stream since everyone must license the technology but, in return, they lose the ability to pick and chose who can license the technology and they lose the ability to set whatever license rate they wish - the _MUST_ license the technology and it _MUST_ be at Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory rates.
Non-FRAND patents, such as those utilized by Apple in these cases, however, are not encumbered by such requirements. The owner of a non-FRAND patent is under no obligation to license the patent and under no obligation to license the patent at a fair and reasonable rate.
Samsung and Motorola are forsaking their FRAND obligations by specifically targeting Apple with unfair and unreasonable licensing demands, which is anti-competitive behaviour and a breach of their FRAND obligations.
Apple, on the other hand, are simply defending their patent rights. You can disagree with whether or not they should have been granted those patents all you want but the fact is a) they were granted those patents and b) Apple did not submit those patents for inclusion in an industry standard and are not bound by FRAND obligations.
There's nothing in FRAND that says they have to give it away...
Nobody has claimed Apple wants the licenses for free. They have claimed that they want them for Fair and Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory rates. As is required by a FRAND agreement.
The FRAND terms that *most* of the industry seems to have agreed on is "you don't sue us, we don't sue you".
That's not even vaguely true. Not even a little bit. The terms that most companies use is "we would rather not spend cash so how about we work out a cross-licensing deal for some of our patents". Apple, on the other hand a) has plenty of cash to pay licensing fees and b) would rather develop a competitive edge over their competition that differentiates them. Thus, they don't want to cross license - they just want to cut a check _AS IS THEIR RIGHT_. The amount being asked by Samsung and Motorola are what they consider to be unfair and unreasonable and are inherently discriminatory since they specifically target Apple.
I thought I made that clear - they're abusing FRAND patents. In my humble opinion, any company that abuses FRAND patents is the worst sort of offender, truly intent on stifling competition within an industry and guilty of the worst sort of anti-competitive behaviour deserving of swift and severe punishment from whatever trade organization can take action against them. If a company agrees to include their patented technology in an industry standard under FRAND terms and then renegs on those FRAND obligations, they are doing more harm to competition within an industry any any company possibly could. That, imho, makes them the true villains.
You do realize that as a Slashdot reader, you are not "the norm" when it comes to technology. You know that only Apple makes the iPad and thus Samsung does not sell an iPad.
Can you say with honesty and certainty that your mom or your dear aunt Mildred or your sister know that as well? Is it possible that the average consumer might, just might, walk into a store hoping to buy " that iPad thing", see a device that looks remarkably like the device they see in the commercials and what their friends have, and ask the clerk for it and plop down their money and head home with, what turns out to be a Samsung Galaxy because virtually everything about the product, including the packaging, is designed to look like the iPad and they, unlike you and I, don't know that Samsung doesn't make an iPad? Is that a possibility?
Judge Koh isn't protecting poor people like you - she's protecting poor people like your mom, your dear aunt Mildred, and your sister, who don't know technology as well as you do and don't know that there's a difference between the two devices that look identical.
Massive pet peeve that I know many Slashdotters disagree with but APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL.
A patent troll is a non-practicing entity who's sole business revolves around generating profits from patent lawsuits. They make nothing and sell nothing.
APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL. Apple is a practicing entity - they make and sell products (to say the least). They also spend a lot of money on research and development and thus garner numerous patents on the technologies that they invent. Sometimes, when they feel other companies have infringed those patents, they defend them up to and including via lawsuits. That does not make a company a patent troll, no matter how much you hate the company nor how much you hate the patent system.
I realize people hate Apple - knock yourself out if you do. Go for it. I realize people hate the patent system - again, knock yourself out if you do. Go for it. But don't let your hatred of Apple cloud the issues and muddy the arguments against the patent system. Claiming Apple is a patent troll makes it harder to discuss the problems with the patent system, one of which includes _actual_ patent trolls abusing the system while actually producing nothing of value for society. Regardless of what you think of Apple, they actually invest money in R&D. They actually produce products. They actually DO something. They are not a patent troll. They are just defending their patent rights.
If you don't think Apple should have patents on the technologies they've developed, fine. Argue that. That is a discussion that can be had but don't confuse the issue by claiming they are something they are not. APPLE IS NOT A PATENT TROLL.
*As an addendum, neither is Microsoft nor Motorola nor Samsung nor HTC and so on and so on. Companies that actually do something are not patent trolls, regardless of what they do via the patent system. This isn't just about Apple but it's most often a claim levied against Apple. Feel free to replace "Apple" with whatever practicing entity you wish lest you think I'm just being an Apple fanboy defending Apple. I'm not - I'm sick of people claiming a company is a patent troll because they defend their patents. Defending your patents doesn't make you a patent troll. Enforcing patents as a way or business and a sole means of revenue makes you a patent troll. And those companies should be reviled.
Stuff like this makes me want to buy a Samsung device right now, simply out of spite for these agressive, bullshit patent practices that limit competition and my choices as a consumer.
Why? You want to support a company that abuses their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition.
Seriously, it boggles my mind that people are so utterly blinded by their hatred of Apple that they fail to recognize that Samsung (and Motorola) are utterly abusing their FRAND patent obligations in an effort to stifle competition in the mobile market in the absolute worst possible way imaginable.
But, hey, you feel free to paint Apple as the villain here and rally support for the true villains. That koolaid must taste real good.
Is this the beginning of the end for Android?
Look, I'm an Apple fanboy and all but that's just a stupid, moronic question designed to inflame. Come on. Is it the beginning of the end? No! At the worst - at the very worst, if things go as horribly wrong as possible for Samsung (and Motorola and HTC) as one could imagine and as well for Apple as people fear, it would be the beginning of companies being forced to designed around Apple's patents to make phones that look different and function differently than the iPhone and iPad or to pay a forced licensing fee to utilize the function in past and future devices. If anyone is so daft as to think that means "the end of Android" then they are idiots.
Seriously, it's not rocket science. I know it's fun to post stories designed to generate conversation and to fire people up but let's not be stupid. Contrary to what anyone (including the late Steve Jobs) thinks, none of this is going to spell the end of any company or platform. At the worst, it's going to force a company to pay some money and/or design around the patent. That's it. That's all.
This is such a glorious example of how Slashdot readers just don't get it sometimes. Let's see:
Yes, what we need -- more facebook integration.
Yes. There are literally 100's of millions of Facebook users and I suspect they will happily take more Facebook integration with their phone. Just because you (or many Slashdotters) hate Facebook doesn't mean that the vast (VAST) majority of people out there also hate it.
What Apple needs to do is start figuring out how to get themselves enterprise-friendly without losing their consumer market. Enterprises buy stuff in such large chunks that a few good contracts are a lot better than lines around the building of hipsters.
Absolutely right. Except the iPhone is, by a wide margin, the most successful smartphone on the market making Apple the most successful company in the world while RIM, with it's focus on enterprise, is nearly dead. So maybe not so right after all.
Seriously, Slashdotters have such a strong sense of "I know how to do it right and they clearly don't so let me spell it out for you..." Um, Apple is _THE_ most successful company on the planet, by a wide margin. They have figured out how to do it. Perhaps your roadmap to success isn't quite as good as you think it is given that your roadmap to success sounds a HELL of a lot like "focus on enterprise like RIM". You know, RIM, the company that is desperately cutting overhead in an effort to save their company from utter ruin because that's where they're headed.
Look, Apple isn't perfect and there are things that they can do better in various ways but I think they've proven, beyond any possible shadow of a doubt, that their approach works a hell of a lot better than your suggested approach. Focusing on consumers is a roadmap to success. Getting consumers behind your product gets your product into businesses. They've proven this. Why Slashdotters cannot see this is a mystery to me.
And clearly you're indicative of the market's desires...
I've had an iOS device for many years now and I can literally count on one hand the number of times I _NEEDED_ Flash. And, as time goes by, that number is not growing - any website with even a vague hint of what's going on offers an alternative to Flash because they know cutting out the rather large mobile market is a bad idea.
The only real impact the lack of Flash has had is that I don't see Flash advertising and, believe me when I say, I don't miss one second of it.
That's the thing, when Jobs said it should die, many agreed, but to not (at the time) offer an alternative, wasn't the best way to handle it.
Yes it was. It was absolutely the best way to handle it. Offering an alternative would have just dragged things out and offered a subpar product. Say whatever you want about Jobs but he was not afraid to cut the cord if he felt that a technology had run its course and when he's done so, it's made a drastic shift happen quickly. Flash (on mobile devices) is but one example of that and I, for one, am glad for it. Flash sucks. Despite what some people will say, Flash sucks. Hardcore. It dying out faster rather than slower is a good thing.
Don't you get it, we're all within the jurisdiction of the RIAA and MPAA...
I find it amusing that the Nexus Q (you know, the incomplete device that requires hookup to another device to be of any value) costs more than the Nexus 7 (you know, the complete device that doesn't require anything else). Methinks one of these devices is going to do quite well in the market and the other will do less well...
Copyrights are out of control in as much the length of a copyright is simply insane now. I have no issue with a rights holder defending their copyright but I do not agree with life+50 (or 70, depending on the country) because that is insanity and abuse of the intent of the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
There is more than one type of patent and this case is about a DESIGN patent.
Apple are the worst offenders and is the most anti-competitive company in the industry, they're worse than Microsoft.
Totally!!
Well, except for the fact that they have nothing approaching a monopoly in any industry in which they operate and consumers have the easy choice to go with alternatives should they dislike Apple's offerings whereas Microsoft had ~95% of the desktop market at the time the anti-trust cases occurred (and still have ~90% of the market).
Other than that, you're right - totally worse than Microsoft. ...
I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to a troll AC but here we go.
a) "Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer."
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/samsung-has-terrible-lawyers/
One of many articles available from a two second Google search - feel free to search on your own to find one more to your liking, if you wish. Here's the relevant section:
"Reuters reports that at one point during the hearing, Koh held both an iPad and a Galaxy Tab 10.1 above her head and asked Samsungâ(TM)s lawyers if they could tell which was which at a distance of only 10 feet.
âoeNot at this distance your honor,â said Kathleen Sullivan, a Samsung attorney that may need to get her eyes checked.
The judge asked the question again, this time of the entire Samsung legal team. âoeCan any of Samsungâ(TM)s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?â she asked. After a moment or two, one of the team got the right answer."
So, with a 50/50 chance of randomly picking the right device, Samsung's own legal team showed no confidence in picking the right one and the _entire legal team_ had to take a moment to pick one. I stand by my statement.
b) Here's a bunch of pics that shows how they are TOTALLY THE SAME. Nope, you need a microscope to find a difference. "Entire design" copied, right. Except for all the parts that aren't.
Someone else in the thread posted a very clear outline of how clearly and obviously Samsung has altered their designs to match the iPad. I won't bother regurgitating the information - I'll just link to their informative post.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2940821&cid=40464751
c) Did you know that US is not the whole world? Other courts thrown out Apple's design claims.
First, what does that have to do with anything. Second, you do know that there are countries that have enforced Apple's design patent. Introduce yourself to Germany - Samsung altered their infringing design, to avoid an infringement conviction, to keep the product on the shelves.
Who here is surprised by this?...
I know I'm in the minority here in that I have no problems with patents (copyrights, on the other hand, are out of control...). I do, however, have a significant problem with patents being wielded by non-practicing entities. Patents being claimed and enforced by Microsoft or Apple or Google or Motorola or Samsung or whatever other company who actually does something is fine. I know many people here are outraged when a company actually enforces their patent and calls the company in question a patent troll but the truth is they are simply enforcing their rights as a patent holder, as is their right. That's the point of patent protection and I'm fine with that.
Non-practicing entities, however, aren't protecting their intellectual property. They aren't protecting their innovative edge over their competitors. They are leaches. That's it. That's all.
While I don't pretend to think that fixing the problem would be simple, it would be nice to require patent holders to actually be actively using the patent to be permitted to enforce it. Yes, I realize that becomes complex for patents that are granted before the innovated product comes to market but I think that's not an insurmountable detail to overcome. The point remains the same - companies that aren't practicing entities should have no authority or ability to enforce patents. That would solve so many problems across so many industries.