Apple Launches New Legal Attack On Samsung 490
walterbyrd writes "Apple Inc has asked a federal court in California to block Samsung Electronics Co Ltd from selling its new Galaxy Nexus smartphones, alleging patent violations. In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products. Those include the ability to unlock phones by sliding an image and to search for information by voice."
hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that they are bogus but that there is substantial prior art for each of them that wasn't given to the patent office.
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no excuse for issuing patents that are not properly vetted. If you don't have the resources to properly vet patents, stop issuing patents.
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that they are bogus but that there is substantial prior art for each of them that wasn't given to the patent office.
Talking to computers may have cropped up in sci-fi once or twice.
Well, that would make it both prior and art, but not prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Apples is clearly scared shitless of Sumsung's hardware + Android.
Since Apple is so eager to endorse Sunsung as a superior hardware alternative, sounds like it needs to be my next phone purchase.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
you mean from the perspective of businesses that Apple has stood upon?
On my windows mobile 6 phone, I had a "slide to unlock" screen; So how many billions of dollars did Apple spend R&D'ing that?
I'm sorry, but Apple is everything they used to speak out against, they are the suits. The amount of "new" things that Apple has patented is very small. Everything else is just a tweak from something else.
Re: (Score:3)
On my windows mobile 6 phone, I had a "slide to unlock" screen
How do you know there wasn't a license fee for that? Or, more likely, some MS-Apple cross-license agreement?
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
They are most certainly afraid of Ice Cream Sandwich (Android 4.0) and they should be. People should really see their BS for what is with these claims, seriously, they own voice control? My Car's navigation system has had voice control for a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS?
I gotta think that Jobs saying he was going to destroy Android even if it took every last dollar of his stockholders money, kind of makes that obvious. You dont bankrupt a thriving company to fight something thats not a threat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, it also violates my patent on slimy business practices.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, it also violates my patent on slimy business practices.
Sorry, there's 5000 years of prior art WRT your patent! :P
Voice Search (Score:5, Interesting)
....has been on Android long before it was on iOS. I guess we know Apple is going to use their warchest to be anti-competitive.
Yay software patents.
No slide to unlock? Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.
Re: (Score:2)
No slide to unlock? Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.
Finally a use for that "embed an Arduino in womens clothing" idea that just won't go away and has mostly been used to implement flashing lights...
Re:Voice Search (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them keep it up. They're just building a case for patent misuse - the B&N case will be a simple how-to sue for patent misuse to be used on Apple.
Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Now all the fanboys see Apple for what they are.
I just laugh at all the comments over the years. Every time Apple applies and gets a new patent, every Apple lover replies with "b-but but but they'll never use them! And they're probably doing it to protect themselves!" or some other lame excuse.
Well now the answer is clear. And they're worse than even SCO or Microsoft. At least they just wanted a cut of the money. Not Apple. They want to hinder one of the most useful and important things that benefit people today.
Though what is interesting is, *for Apple to do this*, must mean that they are scared. Very scared. Can't compete with inferior tech, so let's litigate. They wouldn't do this if they were confident that its product really is superior, and really is "magical."
Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Informative)
whats even funnier is that Siri is just Wolfram alpha with a screen reader.
Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Now all the fanboys see Apple for what they are.
If only that were true.
You need to remember that it's the fanboys that defended Apple's idiotic "look and feel" patent based on rounded fucking corners and square icons. They'll defend this just as insipidly.
They wouldn't see Apple for what they are if Zombie Steve Jobs came back to fuck them in the eye.
Re: (Score:3)
As a likely candidate for the fanboy title, since I seem to be accused of it fairly regularly, I will say that the whole issue is whether you like software patents or not. I don't like software patents, but that is the environment you live in. Apple operates within that environment, as does the opposition. They all use patents as a competitive weapon. So what? Don't like it? How about changing the law? I'm waiting.
Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Informative)
An apologist or misguided, I don't know which one you are. No, Apple has a history of *litigation.* NOT being a patent troll who flat-out is attempting to block out an entire industry. And on top of that, why are you defending this anyway? You think this is ok?
Witness the countless times Apple has ruined other businesses via litigation, especially small businesses only attempting to make a living off its ecosystem and making a contribution, from the earliest days. Via litigation.
And patent enforcers goal is to extract fees or a cut of the revenue. Again, even the slimiest of the slimy, SCO, wasn't even attempting what Apple wants. They simply wanted a piece of the pie. Not to throw all the pies on the ground in a temper tantrum, stomp on it, rub it in your face, and then offer their own strudel instead.
Re:Voice Search (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Windows was more free than Apple. Any computer manufacturer could make a machine and sell it with Windows on it, by buying a license for it. They could not do that to make a machine running Apple software.
Re:Voice Search (Score:5, Funny)
... Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.
Yeah, Lotsa prior art there. I could send you some.
Re: (Score:3)
... Perhaps we should make a "place genitals here" unlock mechanism. At least that may not be patented yet.
Yeah, Lotsa prior art there. I could send you some.
Yeah, I can see where you come from.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the latest sex toy for the seriously jaded...
Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait till Apple finds out that Samsung phones "allow people to communicate via text and voice"
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Samsung are both overpriced but while they fight it out LG are quietly bringing out some really good cheap and cheerful phones with all the bells and whistles at much better prices.
http://www.lg.com/uk/mobile-phones/all-lg-phones/all-lg-phones.jsp [lg.com]
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Funny)
I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer my mobile communication devices to be surly.
Gone are the good ole days when your satellite phone was a briefcase.
Trash Can Icon (Score:4, Informative)
I remember when Amiga and Atari both came out with machines based on the Motorolla 68000 processer (the same as the first mac). I owned an Atari ST during that time. Apple sued Atari over the TOS desktop, specifically they were mad about the Trash Can icon (among other things).
Then there were the emulators. Since they shared the same processor it was only a matter of time before someone wrote an emulator to let Mac run on Atari. "Gadgets by Small" was hounded by Apple's lawyers when they published Spectre 128 and Magic Sac. The ST ran 68000 Mac software with very little impact in performance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I find it interesting that Steve Jobs ultimately
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Apple hired Microsoft to help program the GUI. Microsoft in turn agreed not to create their own GUI OS and we all know how that turned out.
That was IBM, not Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
It was ironic back *in* 1984.
I was an Apple developer pre-Mac, and THAT is when it began looking like Big Brother. The Apple II/III had been open (not quite as open as today's open source, but the principles hadn't yet been firmed up) but everything Mac, hardware and software was locked down. Apple forbade early Mac owners from using ANY hard disk for 18-24 months until they developed their own. Even an external HDD voided the warranty which you *needed* because Mac's expensive non-user-replaceable power s
Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like my Apple products, but this endless pissing match between them and Samsung doesn't endear them to me.
The alternative is that they and similar companies silently cooperate with each other with practices like price fixing, cross licensing of patents and behaviour befitting a cartel.
So on balance I prefer it when these companies engage in a fight to the death, no one else is powerful enough to keep them honest.
Re:Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The alternative is that they win the market BY BUILDING A BETTER PRODUCT.
You're the perfect example of what's wrong with the current state of corrupt corporate culture. Actually competing on merit is something that isn't even considered.
Re:Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, I don't think it's even possible.
Between all of the players, damned near everything is patented. And anybody who owns a patent (no matter how absurd) wants everyone else to pay them crazy licensing fees (Microsoft gets paid something like $5 for every Android device), and sues to keep you out of the market if you don't.
Sadly, it seems like innovation has taken a back seat to lawyers, and it doesn't seem to be showing any signs of getting better.
If you designed a better product, unless you were already a company with deep pockets, there's simply no way you could bring it to market.
I blame the patent system more than I do the players -- it's been set up in such a way as to encourage lawsuits more than creating actual products. And, since we're talking about markets in the billions, I doubt companies can afford to purely compete on the merit of their products.
Since the USPTO has now changed it to "first to file" instead of considering prior art, it's only going to make this worse. Pretty much every company is going to have to try to patent the most trivial ideas in order to give themselves something to fight back with. Because they no longer care if you've taken someone else's idea ... only that you filed first.
If patents are still filling their role of fostering innovation, it's sure as hell hard to see it.
Re:Facepalm (Score:4, Informative)
I think you should read up what the First To File change actually has to do with. Prior Art is still considered. If I develop and ship a product, then Company B comes around and patents something already in my product (that I didn't patent), their patent can be invalidated by my product as prior art.
What this really is supposed to "fix" is 2 companies that develop the same tech around the same time and file for patents around the same time (lets say within a year of one another), but before either has gone to market. In the system prior to "First to file", a really expensive and long lawsuit would have to occur where each side had to try and prove that they invented the patented idea first. This would involve both sides submitting design documents, emails, and any other forms of recorded communications that could be used to prove they invented it first. This was a timely and expensive battle.
With First to File, whoever filed the patent first (assuming there is no prior art) will win, keeping lawyer fees down. This also puts us in line with the rest of the world as to how to handle similar patents filed near one another.
Re:Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you think these lawsuits have had any effect on their market share?
Uh... yes? Considering that the entire purpose of these lawsuits is to keep the competition off the fucking market in the first place, I'd say that's a pretty sane conclusion to reach.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd prefer them to fight to the death on the quality of their products, not shitty overstretched patents that don't do the end user any good.
Apple, however, have clearly decided they're not capable of doing that any more.
Re:Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is that they and similar companies silently cooperate with each other with practices like price fixing, cross licensing of patents and behaviour befitting a cartel.
Cross-licensing of patents is actually a good thing, and something everybody in the cell phone market (except Qualcomm) was already doing for decades before Apple decided to enter the market. Price fixing, bad. But using ridiculous patents like "sliding an image to unlock the screen" is worse. They want to drive the competition out of business, and when they realized that they can't do that on the actual merit of their product, they have decided to resort to litigation. When they finally do establish the monopoly they seem to want, gods help us all.
The amusing part of it is that Samsung has a very large number of patents they can bring to bear against Apple, if they really wanted to go for a full on trade war. Samsung is trying to cooperate with them, but when they finally do realize what Apple's game is... how long do you suppose Apple could last if Samsung and LG decided to stop selling them LCD's? For anything, including their desktop and laptop computers. You do realize there's only two companies producing anything approaching a significant number of LCD panels in the world today, and that everybody else is just reselling either a Samsung or an LG panel?
Re:Facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
Cross-licensing of patents is actually a good thing
I disagree -- it's fine for the large companies, but it blocks out small, perhaps more innovative companies.
WTF!!? Benefit to consumers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain how raising prices, reducting choice, and stifling innovation is a benefit to consumers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rising prices? How so. The entry level iPhone started at $499 when the first iPhone came out. It's gradually dropped and the entry level 4S is now $199.
And you can now get an older model (the 3GS) for free.
How is that raising prices?
Less choice (if that's what we have) is a benefit. See the paradox of choice.
Patents are a system to reward innovation. And we certainly do see plenty of innovation in the phone market.
Re: (Score:3)
And who is to say that prices would not even be lower were not for Apple's junk patent scam?
And what has this done to the price of Androids?
And what happens in the future when Apple monolopizes the market? As Apple is clearly trying to do.
Patents are a system to reward innovation.
These are junk patents. Apple is clearly exploiting the broken patent system because Apple is scared of fair competition. I would support Apple, if these were real Apple innentions, but they clearly are not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Overcoming the paradox of choice is good for the manufacturer because it gets over a psychological hurdle that the customer would otherwise have to jump to make a purchase.
It is not in any way a benefit for the customer. Making it easier, psychologically, to spend your money doesn't do jack shit for you.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
It has pretty much stopped me from buying Apple (Score:3)
I don't what it will take for you, but Apple has no allure for me anymore. I have had their products for many years and still have three in house, but I am done with buying their products going forward.
Fortunately Samsung just announced a Android 4 tablet coming in March, seven inch form factor which the Kindle Fire convinced we was best, so I may just be able to ditch that iPad.
This certainly ain't a property of Apple post Steve, they started down this road before he died and after reading quotes attribute
Blame Apple 100% (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do not blame Samsung, that is just not fair. If a guy gets mugged in an ally, and tries to fight back, do you blame the victim or the mugger? Apple is the mugger.
Re: (Score:3)
I can tell the difference between a galaxy, and an ipad, with my eyes closed. I can do it easily, in just a couple of seconds. With my eyes open, I can tell the difference in a fraction of a second.
Apple is not just suing Samsung. Apple is suing everybody they can, with their junk patents. Apple is focusing on Samsung because Apple is most afraid of Samsung.
Of course the samsung has a basic tablet design, what you would expect a tablet to look like? A tire irion?
Re: (Score:3)
Who says this is about a picture frame shape?
Every time this is brought up it is dismissed (likely due to wilful ignorance rather than actual stupidity - I do not believe those actively bashing Apple are actually genuinely stupid) as "lolz they sued over a rounded rectangle" when really they did nothing of the sort. That design element is one of many elements (none of which are unique to one particular vendor) that come together to make a product.
There are myriad ways to make a rectangular phone with rounde
Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I hope that this results in an all-out patent war between the big players. Right now, they have little incentive to pour money into lobbying Congress to change the patent system because they're all benefiting from it. As long as they all don't sue each other and only pick on little guys, why would they want to upset the status quo?
However, if the mutual assured destruction scenario actually plays out and they all start suing the crap out of each other, only then would they finally realize that buying tens of thousands of patents as a defensive measure against getting sued is not an acceptable solution to the patent problem. Ultimately, the answer is that software/business process patents need to permanently go away. That can only happen when they stop spending so much on lawyers building, defending, and in some cases, using as weapons their patent portfolios and start actually making meaningful changes in the system.
Yes, they'd have more competition. Yes, that means that sometimes, competitors might mercilessly steal some of your clever ideas. But it also means that instead of spending billions of dollars on lawyers, you can now redirect that money towards research and development to blow competitors away with awesome products (thus gaining brand and product loyalty) instead of trying to blow them away in a courtroom (which is nothing but a colossal waste of time and money).
Searching by voice? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they got a patent on searching *by* the keys instead of searching for the keys. People these days are crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
*hurries off to the Patent office to patent Voice Activated Crowd Sourcing*
More to follow? (Score:5, Interesting)
This will become interesting only when Apple files suit against Microsoft (one if Apple's largest shareholders) for searching for information by voice -- a long time feature of Windows phones.
Re:More to follow? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More to follow? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am almost forgetting about sony being evil with every new lawsuit out of apple.
I spoke too soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/13/whitney-houston-album-price [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Even setting aside Apple having been last-to-market with voice search, don't Apple and Microsoft already have patent cross-licensing agreements in place? I'm pretty sure there are a number of Microsoft patents they'd rely on every bit as much as Microsoft might rely on theirs. Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.
Yup, which is why you don't see that happening with MSFT, and why you don't see Android licensing patents between MSFT and the companies that also sell PCs *and* have IP MSFT needs -- because they agreements are already there. Its just the newcomers that needed them. And like any patent licensing agreement, the dollar price is usually directly proportional to the IP imbalance between the two parties. I'd bet AAPL and MSFT very nearly wipe their hands in that arena.
Re:More to follow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Android OEMs are an easy target due to Google's lack of indemnification and apparently lax attitude towards patent issues, but I suspect Microsoft would already be in the clear with licensing even if there were valid patent issues there.
Lax attitude towards patents? SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED. Google just happens to be on the right side of that issue. Software is authored works and hence should be protected by copyright which it already is. Just like books and movies and music. So do you have a lax attitude towards the patenting of book story concepts? Or are you in favor or patenting the concept of a love story or wars in space or whatever. Lets just say the concept of wars in space was patented so no one could write a book about wars in space regardless of the content. Would you be lax about those patents? or would you support and cheer for them? Do you write software? would you like your code to become subject to trivial patents that claim wholesale ownership of your code?
Re: (Score:2)
They won't. They know while Google may take it, MS will bury them into the ground in court. MS would probably at the end of the day prevent them from ever selling the iPhone at all. There goes 2/3 of Apple's future revenues.
Though maybe MS or other vendors should. Apple attempt is going to threaten the very core of the mobile future and make no mistake will prevent you from getting a Google or MS or any other smartphone. They're taking away competition and choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the same agreement that you're alluding to with your mention of being Apple's largest shareholders (which, by the way, they are not), also included a cross-licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, in order to make the QuickTime lawsuit go away.
Microsoft sold those shares long ago, at a nice profit.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Ars technica reported, "All told, Microsoft spent a little over $151 million to acquire 18.2 million shares of Apple stock, for roughly $8.31 per share. Microsoft confirmed that it sold all of its AAPL holdings some time ago, and likely did so at a healthy profitâ"after all, AAPL has traded significantly higher than $8 for many years. But what if Microsoft had held on to that investment just a little longer?"
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/05/apples-stock-rise-could-have-meant-5-billion-for-microsoft.ars [arstechnica.com]
Search via voice is something..... (Score:5, Insightful)
That google has had for a long time, and they had search by image. Please apple try and infringe on this. I hope google sue you into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple vs Samsung. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is an outsourcing manufacturer of niche products. Samsung is a global innovator AND manufacturer.
Re: (Score:3)
By "global innovator" do you mean "will copy designs of companies from all over the globe"? ;)
DISCLAIMER: I love the Galaxy II S and think the whole lawsuit farce is stupid.
"search for information by voice" - telephone? (Score:2)
"search for information by voice"?!
Telephones do that. We had automatic, electronic voices answering questions more than five years ago.
They were as stupid as Steve Jobs and Siri combined and either stood no Turing test at all.
Inevitable? (Score:2)
It's not like Apple has the vision and single-mindedness of Steve Jobs to fall back on any more.
Apple, please just help stop the Patent Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, this only benefits lawyers and kills future innovation.
I don't see how Apple is benefitting long-term from this mentality and cultural mindset. It's a shortterm win at best and then a death by a thousand cuts as any of it's own innovations will be dealt with the same way by other companies.
I don't particularly blame Apple for this, but they certainly could afford a few lobbyists to turn this crap system around.
Re:They can't stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the property they're "defending" is not really theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
bad first sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
What is up with the first sentence of TFA?
"In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products."
I think it's supposed to be saying "patents OF underling features THAT customers expect"... But this seems to imply that the reason that the patents are valid is because customers expect Apple to have the features that these patents cover, which is not a basis for a patent, and certainly not the basis for a patent infringement claim.
I am very, very frustrated with the state of tech reporting regarding patents, and the tortured English and tortured understanding of the nature of the suit even in the very first sentence of this article just makes it worse.
Ars puts the story in some more context... (Score:5, Informative)
Including a breakdown on FOSS Patents blog:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apple-requests-us-preliminary.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In light of all this, my personal feelings about preliminary injunction motions have changed from "negative" to "neutral", and my view of their tactical suitability has changed from "overly ambitious" to "apparently necessary". Apple needs to get leverage, especially in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions, before it comes under too much pressure due to some companies' FRAND abuse. (Again, without the things that happened during those past eight days, I would also have reacted differently to this week's motion).
Re: (Score:3)
In light of all this, my personal feelings about preliminary injunction motions have changed from "negative" to "neutral", and my view of their tactical suitability has changed from "overly ambitious" to "apparently necessary". Apple needs to get leverage, especially in the United States, but also in other jurisdictions, before it comes under too much pressure due to some companies' FRAND abuse.
Thing is, if Apple successfully manages to fend off FRAND abuse while enforcing it's own patents, we end up with a very perverted situation -- the more frivolous a patent is, the more it's worth -- because "rounded corner" patents are free of mandatory licensing requirements, while fundamental technology patents have their value capped.
Didn't ork in the Netherlands, let's try CA? (Score:5, Informative)
The Slide-to-unlock patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7657849.PN.&OS=PN/7657849&RS=PN/7657849 [uspto.gov]
It's important to mention that a Dutch court where Apple tried to claim infrigement on the same patent has already ruled it as invalid, after Samsung presented the Neonode N1m as prior art.
Re: (Score:3)
GIMME A BREAK ALREADY! (Score:5, Insightful)
But all I can say anymore to mainly apple and a lesser extent other manufactures is:
Give me a fucking break already! Aim for cooperation and interoperability. Those two things would benefit end users on both sides more than spending billions on squabbling! All of these endless back and forth lawsuits is ruining both the mac and android experience for me. I know I'm kinda rambling but I'm getting to a tipping point. Looking forward to WebOS this September.
prior art... also obvious. (Score:3)
"Search for information by voice"? Prior art: 411
Not to mention, of course, that the concept of making any sort of vocal request and having it acknowledged and responded to in a comprehensible fashion is entirely obvious, even if the exact implementation of how to get a computer to do it is not.
As the saying goes... (Score:4, Insightful)
...
If you can't innovate
litigate!
Remember a Time... (Score:3)
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Hmmm Can Apple sue Bell? (Score:3)
Can Apple sue Bell laboratories- the earliest phones were voice operated for searches.
"Operator, can you connect me to Oswaldina McWeaney in Memphis Tennessee please?"
- incidentally I wonder if any operator was named Siri?
The voice search is hilarious (Score:3)
given that Android has had voice search for more than two years now (introduced i think in 2.0 or so) and Winmobile had it also for 7 or more years.
When will this patent madness finally end?
Apple stock is a bubble (Score:5, Interesting)
In view of the actual lifetime of a mobile phone, and the Apple cash mountain, I'd suggest a realistic valuation is between $200 and $300 billion.
In order to maintain the appearance of invulnerability Apple must sue, sue and sue again - just like SCO - as part of the preservation of the image that no other company can (or will be allowed to) possibly compete. If it starts to lose too many patent suits, its share price will suffer, and if, post-Jobs, it has somewhat lost direction (or is up against growing technological barriers like battery life), it doesn't really have a counter.
While the Chinese economy continues historically weak I don't thing the rulers of China will rock the boat - but at some point I suspect they will look at Apple's profits and say, in effect "Hey, we do all the work, we deserve some of that". One option would be a dramatic rise in factory gate prices. Another would be a slow rise in the currency.
Apple sues everyone for existing! (Score:3)
Re:I'll say it! (Score:4, Funny)
Well in the UK it IS a valid argument. ^_^
http://mattwpbs.com/2009/08/10/i-refer-you-to-the-reply-given-in-arkell-vs-pressdram-1971 [mattwpbs.com]
Re:Apple is anticompetitive at its core. (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. What a nicely incoherent collection of rambling.
Patents may be "anti-competitive", but that's exactly what they are supposed to be! Thanks for the non sequitur.
It is not despicable that Apple relies (uses) the IP of others. No one creates in a vacuum. They publish the source code for all the Open Source code they use; even the BSD code. They do not (knowingly) violate software licenses. They purchased CUPS, and yet they still make their changes public. They are doing absolutely nothing to remove OS from the marketplace. Your ramblings about Apple's software strategy is completely nonsensical, and is not based in reality.
There is nothing what-so-ever to recommend about your post other than that it's a great essay for the entrance exam of your nearest Bigots-Are-Us club.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that all of the mentioned patents are bull**** it is even worse that Android had voice search 1-2 years before Apple. Same goes for slide to unlock, a dutch court just threw apple out of the court after Samsung showed prior art regarding slide to unlock. What apple here simply does is landgrabbing and then suing people left and right and sometimes even people who have contracts with the original landowners.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a really poor article, with very little information in it. There are many more articles on the same subject available on the 'net - I've linked to some in my other comments.
It's an interesting subject, but your submission is pedestrian at best and your comment here is pretty worthless and adds nothing to any sort of debate or analysis that could occur on the subject.
Re:Here we go again with the Apple hate (Score:4, Funny)
I know, right? It's so totally unfair, how's Apple supposed to make any profit at all when everyone's copying their very original ideas! They're barely turning any profit at all from iDevices as it is, and if evil Samsung has their way Apple will lose what little profit margin they have!
Oh crap, reality called: turns out Apple's making huge profit, and it's bigger than Microsoft. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has turned into a philanthropist and turns out Steve Jobs was a misanthropic lunatic before he died. Apple's making more profit than Exxon or Walmart. Want more reality? Apple's original ideas were stolen from others too. Apple's crap isn't new, it's existing shit marketed to general populace. It's the technology made in a way so soccer moms and douche bags can use it too. The only thing Apple discovered is that soccer moms and douche-bags are a huge market of people with money to waste.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a hate of Apple (there are some reasons to hate Apple, but this isn't it). Instead, it's a case of Apple doing what many other companies do because of a broken patent system.
People have wanted these small mobile devices for years before the iPhone. And Apple would even have made them earlier if the CPU capability were around earlier. Steve Jobs had a very good insight into what the market wanted. But he wasn't the only one who has that insight. In other companies, the many insights Steve Jo