Apple Has Spent More Than $100 Million Suing Android Manufacturers 184
Diggester writes with an excerpt from an article at Gizmocrazed about the absurd amount of money Apple has spent suing HTC et al: "The never-ending war on Android has cost Apple more than $100 million, according to latest estimates. While a huge chunk of that money was spent (read wasted) in claims against HTC. So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."
Does not compute (Score:4, Insightful)
So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."
WTH? What happened in the 9 cases where the patent was proven to be infringed but the ruling didn't go in Apple's favour?
Re:Does not compute (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see it discussed in TFAs, but all 10 could be from the same case, or Apple could have lost the cases for some other reason, such as when filing the paperwork with the court, on the place on the form that says "do not write in this space," they wroke "okay."
Re:Does not compute (Score:4, Informative)
I think the reason is these are not full court cases,but injunction hearings. Only one jurisdiction, Germany, is enforcing any sort of an injunction and they are still allowing third parties to market and sell Samsung products, just not Samsung.
Re:Does not compute (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw I believe is where I read a brief summary. The judge in at least one of those cases said that while there was infringement there was no possible way that damages were caused because of the nature of the patent. I like smart Judges personally.
In several other cases (again see if you can find them on Groklaw) the MFR was given time to work around the patent. Again no damages were awarded.
Which is which case? No idea off the top of my head. I read way to much to know sources this long after reading them.
Re:Does not compute (Score:5, Informative)
9 cases of infringement that involved software that was changed in the next update so that while Apple MAY have won court costs they didn't win any profit from the defendant. Winning infringement cases usually means the end of a product in the physical world but since this is design attacks on software they can simply rectify the issue in the next software push and thus negate the whole issue.
Re:Does not compute (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."
WTH? What happened in the 9 cases where the patent was proven to be infringed but the ruling didn't go in Apple's favour?
They made minor changes to the software as per court orders.
What you have to remember is that Apple are so afraid of Android that they are suing over anything and everything no matter how petty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a business expense, the same as having an advertising budget. Sue your competitors continually. Apple can afford that particular war of attrition.
Re: (Score:2)
Me thinks that Apple should see this... And maybe... MAYBE... spend that money in R&D instead of L&O.
Maybe they could spend that $100 M on better user trials to avoid situations like that old pesky antenna issue.
Re: (Score:2)
1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:4, Insightful)
Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image. And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he was asking if suing was a profit center for Apple, but rather asking whether the money recovered via license agreements would cover the costs of all that litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
The summary author could be Pro-Apple-Stockholder and is outrage that the company his retirement depends on has wasted $100,000,000 on frivolous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Yeah, what's $100 million. That's nothing. Why I remember back when Bill Gates gave $100 million to Apple and it literally saved the company from going under. But those were bad times, right? We're in good times now and the bad times are long behind us. So it's OK to blow $100 million because we all know that the bad times will never return and we will NEVER say, "Gee! That $100 million sure would come in handy today."
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about Steve Jobs throwing a tantrum because Google had the audacity to try and compete with the iphone with Android.
The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Do you mean to say Apple offered everything on iOS to Google and said "There. Do what you want with it." ?
That's not the story - at least not the way I remember it.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:4, Informative)
The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.
Apple licensed the technology, and paid in Apple stock. So not comparable
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, when Samsung is coming out with products as unique as this: (http://inspiredbyapple.tumblr.com/tagged/Samsung), why would anyone doubt this is all about Jobs's tantrum?
Besides, before the iPad tablets looked almost exactly the same as and functioned just like Apple's products: http://www.pcworld.com/article/113375/tablet_pc_turns_one.html [pcworld.com]
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the iPhone was first unveiled(January 2007) there was a phone (LG Prada [wikipedia.org]) that actually did look a lot like an iPhone
LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”[8]
Note: While the LG Prada was not released until after the iPhone, the design and concept were released before we saw any of this from Apple.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that Apple should be able to trademark the rounded rectangle? That's stupid. Touchscreen devices, quite obviously, should try to maximize the size of the screen relative to the device. And anything that people must handle regularly shouldn't have sharp corners. The rounded rectangle is simply a case of form following function.
Also, at least one of those photos has been manipulated to make the Samsung phone look more like the iPhone. The Galaxy S and iPhone 3G have different dimensions, including different aspect ratios, yet they appear identical in the photo comparing them. Whoops! Newsflash... if you have to lie to prove your point, you don't have one.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...
Re: (Score:2)
This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...
Awwww, come on... It's all the same ip thingy now.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Trademarks are forever. Corporate copyrights are 95 years. Patents are 20 years. Of the three, the only one that is property is trademark.
Re: (Score:3)
As we're seeing though,those patents aren't that strong. Can of worms opening up is that the stuff they have isn't that noteworthy, and the people they're attacking appear to have just as many, perhaps more actual meaningful patents.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. It's about obstructing its competitors from bringing their phones to market. Apple figured out a year ago that its competitors have better phones than it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about
stopping competition because Apple cant compete.
And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
And what company wouldn't? $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple - about 1/140th of last quarter's profit (much less for how much they've spent total), and in the process they've disrupted Android phone releases with lawsuits, called them an inferior copy, patented simple things like swipe to unlock, etc, so they have plenty of fodder for more lawsuits. Capitalism is all about winn
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter that much. In 2010, $100 million would have been about one tenth of one percent of Apple's income.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Funny)
Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
As the case wasn't tried in South Korea, I think the award was probably in dollars.
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is: how much money did all the lawsuits (winning or not) cost the competitors?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
And don't forget - the monetary cost to the defendants is only part of the cost to the platform as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thought. Probably some. How much we will never know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?
Zero. HTC just removed the feature and the court where Apple brought the suit can't issue money damages.
.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/21/BU5H1MFCVG.DTL
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Some the patents being handed out for the most mundane concepts in computing are out of hand. Just as another said, if Apple had tried to patent overlapping windows most likely they would have either not been awarded the patent or would have been thrown out in court. On top of it all if the patent had held up for the initial 14 years Apple would have crushed the speed of computing under the weight of their proprietary systems. We should be praying everyday that Apple didn't win that fight and they don't
Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (Score:4, Informative)
We are talking about a company that nearly went out of business because they didn't properly patent their UI (And Apple did a lot of improvements over the Xerox design)
Speaking as someone who worked on both Xerox and Apple computers during the mid 1980s, this is rubbish. There were no significant innovations which Apple and its offspring brought to their user interface - at least until NeXT Step [wikipedia.org] - which had not at least been experimentally tried at Xerox PARC before Steve Jobs' famous visit. Even if they had, nothing in this ought to be patentable anyway - it's all reasonably obvious to any practitioner in the field as soon as the technology (bit-mapped screens and a pointing device) becomes available. When I last bothered to track it, there were fourteen US patents for which I personally had created prior art; I'm sure there are many more now.
Re: (Score:2)
Any comments on this:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&showcomments=1 [folklore.org]
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Busy_Being_Born.txt [folklore.org]
Even if they had, nothing in this ought to be patentable anyway - it's all reasonably obvious to any practitioner in the field as soon as the technology
FWIW, I believe patents should be abolished. It's come to a point where patents cost society more than they benefit society, especially software and process patents.
Too many patents are used to stop someone else from doing something even if the patent holder can't do it as well or doesn't even intend to do it.
So much for returns. (Score:4, Insightful)
They could have gotten higher ones investing in manufacturing in the US for US markets versus this unproductive litigation.
Re:So much for returns. (Score:4, Informative)
They did - Samsung will open a new factory in Texas for producing the A? CPUs. Too bad that they will be shipped to China for final assembly as there are no suitable factories in US :)
Re:So much for returns. (Score:4, Insightful)
They did - Samsung will open a new factory in Texas for producing the A? CPUs. Too bad that they will be shipped to China for final assembly as there are no suitable factories in US :)
Yep. As far as I know, there isn't a single US factory that houses 8000 "workers" on-site, ready to wake up in the middle of the night without warning and work a 12 hour shift with a biscuit and tea as their reward.
Oh, or did you mean that none of the factories are suitable because they all lack the necessary suicide nets?
Re:So much for returns. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's mobile business essentially IS extorting money from Android manufacturers to indemnify themselves against litigation, I'm not sure why Apple wouldn't try their hand at it too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Microsoft's strategy is to generate revenue by accepting licensing payments from android manufacturers. This is good for their bottom line as they are making steady income from other people.
Apple's strategy, I think, is to damage their competitors. By keeping android in court, they are hurting sales numbers directly (samsung products being banned for sale, even for just a few months), or indirectly (third party developers question whether android is the right platform; manufacturers reducing their f
Re:So much for returns. (Score:4, Informative)
The iPhone still has a hefty market share - which is important for Apple because they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions.
I don't think it invalidates any of your other points, but it looks like iTunes (apps, music, and video) brought in about 1/10 the money as did sales of iPhones in the last quarter, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from iPad sales, about 1/3 of the amount brought in from CPU sales and about the same amount as brought in by iPod sales. My rough estimates from the following graph give about 2.5 billion for iTunes, 2.5 for iPod, 7.5 for CPU, 7.5 for iPad, 25 billion for iPhone.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/24/apple-reports-best-quarter-ever-in-q1-2012-13-06-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/ [macrumors.com]
They seem to have had a total of 46 billion of total revenue, and 13 billion in net profit. Even if all of the 2.5 billion of iTunes was 100% profit (ie no costs associated with it), that is still only about 1/5th of their total net income. The iPhone would need to have profit rates of less than 10% to get its net profit to be about equal to this. That doesn't sound like "they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions".
Apple is making some pretty big bucks in their content sales businesses, but they still seem to be making the lion's share of their money in the hardware sales business.
Money not necessarily 'wasted' (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, going to court is always a risk. There is some chance that no matter how ridiculous its claims, Apple might win on some minor points, or even some major ones.
Consider this: Apple's Dutch Galaxy Tab ban shot down by The Hague [channelregister.co.uk]
From that article:
Yes folks. Money spent to argue over dotted lines and thickness of the device.
Yes. Thickness of the device. A reasonable design goal to anyone.
That's like arguing infringement of a sports car design based on "goes fast".
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' (Score:5, Insightful)
at least they looked at the devices. If I recall, Germany provided an initial injunction based on a heavily photoshopped picture, provided by apple, showing the ipad vs galaxy tab that had the tab's dimensions grossly distorted and a non-standard home screen manipulated to appear as close to the ipad as possible.
The car equivilent wouldn't be "goes fast" it would be ferrari showing a simple photo of an F40 next to a lamborghini where the lambo's body has been completely removed and replaced with an F40 look-alike, painted with a ferrari factory color, and had ferrari-esque badges slapped on... except the whole lambo conversion was done by ferrari themselves in order to misrepresent the true appearance of the original car.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not a lamborghini, but a Pontiac Fiero, with a really bad body kit on it.
Or even better, a Geo Metro with a red rattle can paint job (or Maaco), you know, with overspray still on the tires, Ferrari F-40-lookalike wheel covers (maybe they're even spinners, too!), two Lee Press-on NACA Scoops on the hood, and some Firrari (yes, the misspelling is intentional) badges stuck on in various places with double-sided tape. And they even forgot to 'shop the "K&N Filter" & "Michael Jordan" stickers from th
Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' (Score:5, Informative)
Not Trolling. Not FUD.
Yes, it was idiotic, but it did happen.
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Apple+Caught+Photoshopping+Galaxy+Tab+101+to+Look+Like+iPad+for+Lawsuit/article22459.htm [dailytech.com]
http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/apple-could-have-given-faulty-evidence-in-euro-samsung-case/ [technobuffalo.com]
http://pauloflaherty.com/2011/08/16/was-apple-caught-fudging-the-facts/ [pauloflaherty.com]
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/15/did-apple-alter-photos-of-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-in-its-inj/ [engadget.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/15/apples-evidence-in-european-galaxy-tab-injunction-was-seriously-misleading-as-in-false/ [techcrunch.com]
do you need more?
Re: (Score:3)
And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Of course, I've already read the whole thing, and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth. There was neither. Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed, Samsung's label obscured, the front-facing camera obscured, and the software display comprehensively modified from default. It was the only image to show the two devices directly from th
Re: (Score:2)
And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Page 29.
Of course, I've already read the whole thing,
Apparently not page 29. Also, you read German?
and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth.
Now, you're just being rude. Which is unconscionable for someone who has apparently never read page 29 of the document, and has also apparently "lied through his teeth" about having done so. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you know.
There was neither.
See, e.g., page 29.
Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed
Not really an "also" considering that I expressly noted that they changed the aspect ratio, and they mention doing so in the text.
Samsung's label obscured
There was no front label, as shown by the other photo
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I'm still not seeing any notification that the image was modified. Here's the text from page 29:
(vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays.Darüber hinaus kopiert das Tab 10.1 das markante dünne Profil des iPad 2.
Glaubhaftmachung:
1. Augenscheinnahme des iPad 2, bereits vorgelegt als
2. Augenscheinnahme eines Galaxy Tab 10.1 erworbenaußerhalb Europas (einschließlich Verpackung), bereitsvorgelegt als
3. Vergleich derProdukte, vorgelegt als
Der Gesamteindruck der Vorderseite ist fast identisch; es gibt keine Unterschiede, die dasTab 10.1 als ein Produkt erkennen lassen, welches sich vom iPad 2 von vorneunterscheidet.
Allerdings ist die Ähnlichkeit nicht auf die Vorderseite beschränkt, sondern erstreckt sich auchauf die Rückseite, die Unter- und Oberseite. Die Ansichten der Ober- und Unterseite zeigen,dass die Ecken in beiden Designs gerundet sind und dass die Breite sich von vorne nach hintensanft verengt. In der Seitenansicht ist das Produkt - wie das Design - eine hohe und dünnerechteckige Form mit abgerundeten Ecken oben und unten; das Rechteck verengt sich sanft vonder Vorderseite zu der relativ flachen Rückseite. Des weiteren haben die Antragsgegnerinnen,wie aus
ersichtlich, eine weiße/metallische Rückseite für ihr Produkt gewähltwie sie die Antragstellerin für ihre iPad und iPad 2 – Produkte verwendet hat. Keines deranderen Produkte die mit der
vorgelegt wurden, weist eine solche Farbe auf.Schließlich ist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Abmessungen der zweiProdukte sehr ähnlich sind (iPad 2 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 241,2 x 185,7 x 8,8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 257 x 175 x 8,6 mm). Es kommt hinzu, dass das Kopieren sich auchauf die Produktverpackung erstreckt – nicht nur im Hinblick auf die Farbe und den äußerlichenGesamteindruck, sondern auch im Hinblick auf die Präsentation der Innenverpackung. DerGesamteindruck der Produkte ist daher fast identisch und das Design des Galaxy Tablet 10.1erweckt deshalb keinen anderen Gesamteindruck.
I'll save myself some time and just do Google Translate:
(vi) if the product is turned on, colored copied icons within the Displays.Darüber addition, the Tab 10.1 the distinctive thin profile of the second iPad
substantiation:
First Visual inspection of the iPad 2, already presented as
Second Visual inspection of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 acquired except within Europe (including packaging), as previously submitted
Third DerProdukte comparison, presented as
The overall impression of the front is almost identical, there are no differences which can be seen as a product dasTab 1.10, which differs from the front of iPad 2.
However, the similarity is not limited to the front, but extends auchauf the back, bottom and top. The views of the top and bottom show that the corners are rounded in both design and that the width narrows from front to back gently. The side view is the product - like the design - a high and thin rectangular shape with rounded corners above and below; the rectangle narrows gently Vonder front to the back of relatively flat. Furthermore, the defendants invited, as from
has used products - can be seen, a white / metallic back for their product, they gewähltwie the applicant for their iPad, and iPad second None of the products with the deranderen
were presented, has such a color is auf.Schließlich in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (width / height / depth): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm). It added that copying is auchauf extends the product packaging - not only in terms of color and the consolidated his impressive appearance, but also with regard to the presentation of the inner packaging. DerGesamteindruck the products is therefore almost identical and the design of the Galaxy Tablet 10.1erweckt therefore a different overall impression.
Nope, no mention of modified images. So yeah, you're just making things up.
Regarding your reference to page 23: I clearly said both devices, which are not present on page 23. Apple clearly understands that p28 was the important page, since that is where they did their illegal modifying.
Do you think that's what a Tab 10.1 looks like when you turn i
Re: (Score:3)
Oh boy, I love quote games. Here's you circa not too long ago, before I joined this discussion:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where was the image marked at? Where was the explanation?
Here, let me quote it again:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where exactly was that? Hmm?
Oh, and blah blah...Obviously the translation is not fully accurate -- I've got better things to do than transcribe documents when I can copy-paste. The rest is just you trying to smokescreen. Apple forging images in a legal document is indefensible. You having your fingers in your ears won'
Re: (Score:2)
Says it is money well spent (Score:2)
From original TFA [realdanlyons.com]:
Eventually everyone is going to settle. (Steve Jobs may have wanted to drive Android out of existence, but that’s probably not going to happen.) The question is what kind of terms will everyone get in these settlements. The court fights are really just a way of jockeying for position and trying to gain leverage for the great settlement that is yet to come.
In that sense, whatever Apple is spending on legal fees is probably money well spent.
Numbers (Score:2)
Where the hell did they get that number from?
I really hope they are not including the costs of their lawyers, lawyers that will be on retainer and paid regardless if they were fighting a court case or not.
The source gives no justification to the number, it quite literally, as we Aussies would put it, 'pulled it out their arse'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thermonuclear War... (Score:5, Funny)
$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve was never one to let the facts get in the way of his view of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
"I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs
$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.
Um, Steve is no longer around to spend ANY more pennies from Apple's banked billions ... so I'd say he's missed the target.
True Evil - Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
I gave in a year ago after a stroke and bought an iPad. I loved it, supported it f
Re: (Score:2)
...destroying the personal computer industry ...brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights ...plot to hold the education system at gunpoint
Hyperbole much? For someone complaining about fanaticism, you sound completely crazed. All that because you couldn't figure out how to use an iPad? Yeesh.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to find the option for "please don't lock my property". Until I find an easy way to stop a 3rd party interfering with my device, I call it difficult to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... you'd rather Apple not introduce their iBooks product at all? Schools can still use *textbooks* you know. It's not as if Apple is taking away all alternatives which have worked for the thousands of years schools have existed.
iforgot.apple.com (Score:2)
Have you tried iforgot.apple.com [apple.com]?
First hit on Google from iPad "locked for security reasons"...
Re: (Score:2)
Let go of your nerdrage and hatred. Might lower your BP enough to avoid a second stroke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, iPhone not under warranty then. If it was under warranty they'd have just given you a new one.
If it's broken (what did you expect them to do purely in software?) it's such a small device, with few pieces, that any hardware failure is just more economic to swap for a new phone (and cheaper to sell you a refurb than run a repair on the one you own). They'll then take all the broken phones and repair and refurbish them as appropriate in bulk, rather than doing them on a case by case basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course - when has that ever been in doubt? They're just store members, with some training on hardware and software problems - like "the geek squad" or "the tech guys" in other branded stores.
You can lampoon them for the branding, but they're just staff doing the best they can. They do repair hardware too, but in the case of phones it is much more economic to give the customer a new one (or sell them a new one if they are out of warranty) than it is to repair them individually. They will get repaired, jus
Grandstanding for future settlements (Score:3, Insightful)
So for $100m (Score:2)
Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?
Is that crazy?
Re: (Score:3)
Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?
Is that crazy?
Apple *is* helping American industry (Score:3)
So, they don't manufacture iStuff thingies in the US. But look how they are helping to build up the strategic American lawsuit industry! The US will be the world's leader and #1 in the lawsuit business!
No need to invade Third World countries any more . . . sue the pants of them!
Meanwhile Apple 1Q results soar... (Score:2)
Why do we make this even possible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?
There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.
Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?
Abolish copyrights and patents. (Score:2)
Abolish copyrights and patents - government regulations at work,
and that's all I have to say on this topic. [slashdot.org]
That's nice of Apple . . . (Score:2)
. . . to bring clarity to the market no matter what the cost to them or their competitors. ($100 million for apple . . . how much did this force their competition to spend on legal fees, research etc.).
Clearly a company that has ideals and values, and is willing to stand up for them.
Jobs' sold gold iCasket (Score:2)
With patented rounded corners cost a lot........gotta make up for it somewhere, right?
Seriously (Score:3)
Can the rest of you now please stop giving these clowns money to further abuse our legal system?
Re: (Score:2)
It's bullshit when applied to relationships and it's bullshit here. If the players all stopped, there'd be no game; just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should (and definitely doesn't mean that you must).
So? (Score:2)
Business sue other business they think are infringing on their products/ip/etc.. Apple is a big company, so it will be big numbers.
*yawn*
chicken feed (Score:2)
100 million is chicken feed if it stops or slows sales of rival products. This sort of money is spent by every major company in courts around the world.
Where's the source for this? (Score:2)
There doesn't seem to be a real source for the claim. TFA refers to a blog where a "rumour" is discussed about Apple having spent $100 million on patent litigation. When TFA is quoted, the rumour suddenly turns into fact.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Tracing back to Dan Lyons' blog [realdanlyons.com], we read:
But a person close to the situation tells me there’s a rumor going around among the lawyers that Apple spent $100 million just on its first set of claims against HTC.
Who knows if it’s true, but if so, Apple didn’t get a lot for its money.
So Slashdot is reporting on an article that reports on a blogger who claims someone told him there was a rumour going around about something (but he has no idea if it's true). Even if we use Dan Lyons' blog as the source, we're at least three steps away from someone who potentially knows anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they're just modding it down because it's trolling?
I mean, I'm willing to listen to a reasoned argument that the GP post should not receive a troll moderation - I'd be interested to hear your points.
I disagree with mod-bombing - all it does is create echo chambers with identical opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, given that I've been on the site for more than 10 years and have plenty of criticisms of Apple.
I think the whole "person X is a shill for company Y because they have a different opinion to me" stuff on slashdot is just weak.
Also, you forgot to log in. Try not to forget next time.
Re:Fear of Apple (Score:5, Informative)
It seems everyone's forgotten how different things were before the iPhone. All this "obvious" shit wasn't obvious at all back then, and it was only a few years ago.
Well, you got LG Prada (came out before iPhone, had virtual touch buttons), Samsung F700 (slightly after iPhone), and then you of course got IBM Simon... Launched in 1993, had touch screen controls, a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. And it had less physical buttons than the iPhone.
So... I'd say that all that obvious shit was pretty obvious back then, but the hardware was lacking a bit. Being the first in a race doesn't mean you invented running :)
Re: (Score:2)
as per my reply [slashdot.org] to your comment somewhere else, the LG Prada's design was unveiled 4 months before the first iPhone was unveiled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It did happen. [geek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time from 2005-2007 when everyone knew that a iPod touch shaped phone would come out.
iPod touch was released sometime after the iPhone - at the time, they were selling iPod classics and Nanos. Phones sucked ( like my N95, or anything else Symbian/windows mobile based), and touch screen phones used styluses.