Apple Tells Retailers To Stop Selling Certain Samsung Devices 308
walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has been sending out letters to carriers and retailers who sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus, informing them of a court-mandated ban on sales and warning them against continuing to market the devices. The court order for the patent case on the Galaxy Tab says Samsung and "those acting in concert" with them are enjoined from selling the devices, and Apple has used the letters to point this out. Samsung, of course, disagrees: "Apple’s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not."
Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and leave the law to the authorities.
Mmmmk?
Weird... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like in this sector, patents are hurting innovation. No wait, that can't be right...
eventually (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies will mean the USA will fall to second rate status in the world. By then China, Brazil, Korea, India, etc will grow wise to this lame "intellectual property" scam, and the next American Steve Jobs wont stand a chance.
When that day comes, and other countries say it was us who invtented this aggressive international enforcememt of this completely bullshit monopoly maintenance technique, just be happy there is and was an alternative strand of thought on the concept of intellectual property: no.
Then maybe we can fnally rid the world of this abomination. It is not ised to protect small inventors, it is used to enforce anti-market monopolistic practices.
Whiny (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does Apple need to complain and whine about all these stupid patents? It's already the largest and most profitable technology company, and its cash reserves are insane. Everything it's doing is just like the Microsoft of the 1990's. And Steve Jobs was possibly a bigger asshole than Gates and Ballmer. Except, for some reason, people actually liked Jobs.
So that means lots of fire sale (Score:5, Insightful)
....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.
Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.
Re:annoying? (Score:5, Insightful)
How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?
It's annoying to support this kind of bickering with my dollars. At least since I really want 75% of all tech patents invalidated (because they are too obvious) and don't think software patents should exist at all. If you buy from a company you are supporting their business practices, all of them. Don't know about "annoying" but it's quite legitimate to scrutinize what you are patronizing. It's no surprise that not everyone will like how a given company does business.
Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Samsung should just stop selling components to Apple...
Let them invent & manufacture that stuff themselves.
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.
You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Apple. I've been thinking about replacing the 3 year old Mac Pro that I use for music production with a new one, but I'm about done with Apple's stormtrooper bullshit.
Seriously. Fuck Apple. You know fads come and go, and nerds and geeks carried Apple through some bad spots. Let's see how long Apple's dominant position in the market lasts when people start to realize that the corporation behind those snappy ads and shiny products are greedy, heavy-handed scum.
I've just decided Apple products are no longer cool. The Apple logo is not cool and owning anything Apple is not cool. Since I was among the first who decided that Apple was cool, decades ago, I feel I have the responsibility now end this thing.
It doesn't matter if I'm the only one. When I see someone with an iPhone or iPad, I'm going to see them as particularly uncool. I will tell them.
Watch and see if it doesn't start a trend. Not because I'm special, but because I'm NOT special. If this is how I feel, it's almost certain that there are lots of other people who feel this way because I am not special. The not-special people who made Apple cool to begin with will be the ones to remove their cool status.
Florian Mueller (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for this part: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them
Especially considering that there's no ban on Galaxy Nexus. Apple's going the way of 90's era Microsoft, and that's sad.
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't recall Microsoft using the courts to uphold patents to prevent copycat competition.
Re:eventually (Score:2, Insightful)
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies
Apparently you fell asleep in 2008 and just now woke up. The "right wing" hasn't had the presidency for nearly 4 years now. It hasn't had Congress for even longer.
Sorry. This is pure Left. As is NDAA, Fast & Furious, Solyndra et al, etc etc etc. And now the destruction by Executive Order, completely bypassing Congress and effectively nullifying the law by fiat, of one of Bill Clinton's biggest successes, welfare reform.
I, for one, welcome our government-cheese, foodstamp, and welfare-Cadillac-driving overlords?
Strat
unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it appears as if some of the countries you've mentioned are suffering from even more regressive political and economic policies. Take for instance, Korea. Samsung dominates Korea in a manner that would put shame any claims that Microsoft or Apple are monopolies. China's government and private sector partnerships make US defense contractors seem like angels. And note how the income disparity between China's billionaires and the peasant poor is greater than that of the US.
Re:annoying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore these big guys have the distribution networks and the manufacturing advantages to profit without such protections.Apple would not going to stop creating new things because Samsung or anybody else could copy them. For God's sake. To tell the truth nobody copied other people's ideas more than Apple in this World.
Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (Score:3, Insightful)
But aren't retailers that sell the device "acting in concert" with them?
I'f I buy 1000 widgets from you, then 1 month later turn around and sell those widgets in my store, how am I acting in concert with you? Our transaction ended completely as soon as I handed you the money and you handed me the widgets.
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whiny (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple has nothing in the pipeline. That is the only logical reason for pouring massive resources into slowing the entry of others into the market. Apple is trying to buy time. In 5 years Apple will be listed next to Nokia and RIM.
Re:annoying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-competition patent scams affect us all (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. These actions by Apple drive up prices, kill innovation, and limit choice.
Re:Weird... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:annoying? (Score:2, Insightful)
Far superior? Be honest, it's incrementally better. Slightly bigger screen (0.2"), slightly faster processor (0.3ghz), slightly better cameras (0.6mp/3mp), slightly bigger battery (~200mah), etc. The only major differences are that it's available with twice the RAM (2gb vs 1) and an SD slot. All for the low, low price of Samsung taking a crap on the UI, a lag in SW updates, and a locked bootloader.
Most, actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's rise to prominence is because they managed to become a fashion company. Normally consumer electronics is quite price sensitive. You don't become the biggest charging premium pricing, consumers just won't have it, even if you are offering something that justifies the cost. However fashion doesn't work like that, expensive is ok, even good. People will pay more to be fashionable.
Well that's what Apple did starting with the iPod. They didn't invent MP3 players, you could get them long before the iPod, however few people did. Like walkmen and so on only some people were interested. However Apple made them not a tech device, but a fashion accessory. You were cool if you owned one, complete with the white earbuds, cord hanging out in front to show you had one. Suddenly Shure and Etymotic had demand for white earbuds, something nobody had ever wanted before (because people wanted better sound but still the status symbol). People didn't buy MP3 players, they bought iPods because it was the fashionable thing.
This continues. People buy Apple because they think it is cool to do. Some people buy it for other reasons, as some people have bought Apple in the past, but the majority buy it to be one of the "in crowd". We just saw this at work, one of the secretaries just had to have an iMac for her new computer. She could not give a coherent reason, particularly since all the software she needs is for Windows (sometimes Windows exclusively). Indeed it has Fusion on it and she basically uses Windows exclusively with it. But she had to have a Mac. The real reason was, of course, because the Mac is "cool" and a PC is not. There was no technical reason or business case for it (and indeed reasons not to do it) it was all about fashion.
Apple is in a world of hurt the day that ends. When that day will be, who knows? It could be tomorrow, it could be in 500 years. However when it happens their profitability will take a massive hit. People will stop buying their devices not for any good reason, but just because they are no longer the cool thing to own.
Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, firstly, copyrights cover works that are impossible for a second content creator to *accidentally* independently create. It's impossible for an independent film producer to accidentally re-create a virtually exact copy of, say, Avatar, and it's impossible for a second independent author to accidentally re-write a major novel. It's just impossible. This makes it much easier to verify and keep track of the actual creator of some copyrighted content - i.e. there cannot be meaningful (honest) conflicting claims from two separate authors honestly claiming to have independently written the same book. This is completely the opposite of patents, where actual, honest independent invention is not only incredibly common, it's actually to be expected and happens every day, all the time.
Second, patents are basically effecitvely a priori force-based restraints on using your mind. E.g. an independent software author must now, with every single step, wonder if they're violating patents. This is not true for copyrights --- it's impossible to independently rewrite large parts of someone else's source code --- when you program, as long as you are doing your own work, you do not have to sit and wonder "am I violating copyrights, am I violating copyrights". Likewise, if you want to write a book, and you just start writing using your mind, you do not have to worry "am I going to accidentally rewrite someone else's novel" -- you just write. But with patents, you are effectively required by law to avoid inventing or writing code lest you accidentally violate someone's patents.
Third, patents have become unreasonably impossible to implement. Not only are you bound by a priori restraints on using your mind to create --- i.e. you are required to continually search for existing patents every time you write a piece of code --- but there are so many thousands of patents (something like 40,000 software patents now in the US IIRC?) that it's actually impossible to even know if you're violating the patent, you need a team of patent lawyers continually searching and checking. This is NOT TRUE for copyright, where it's easy to know, because it's virtually impossible to accidentally violate in any meaningful way.
Finally, patents operate on a basis that violates 'innocent until proven guilty', a basic principle of a moral justice system. If a second inventor GENUINELY accidentally re-invents something, according to the patent system, he is automatically guilty even if he wasn't copying --- and no evidence of copying is required. In crime, evidence is usually required. With patents, no evidence is required - being 'first to file' is considered 'evidence', which is nonsense. Copyright, however, does not operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' .. you need evidence in order to be considered guilty of copyright violation.