Print 112 comment(s) - last by grwww.. on Sep 20 at 10:14 AM

In Apple's view Android smart phone makers are oppressing it and trying to engage in anticompetitive tactics.

Meanwhile Apple is trying to ban Android smart phones and tablets from the market with lawsuits.  (Source: Google Plus)
Company says its rivals are being "anticompetitive" by trying to defend themselves with IP

In a scene straight out of Bizarro World, Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) lawyers are crying foul about Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930) and recent Google Inc. (GOOG) acquisitions Motorola's allegedly "anticompetitive" use of patents.

I. Apple Claims Android Phone makers are "Abusing" Patent System

Yes, this is the same Apple that has initiated a patent war 
[1][2][3][4][5] with these smartphone rivals.  And it's the same rival that has tried to remove competing products from the market, rather than agree to negotiate a licensing fee.  And it's the same company that patented multi-touch gestures 26 years after they were invented at a research university.  And it's the same company that allegedly doctored evidence in European courts [1][2] to support its lawsuits against Android.

Yet in Apple's rose-colored glasses it is Samsung and Motorola who are bullies.  Apparently Apple is irate about these companies' 
countersuits, which rely largely on patents covering wireless communications.

Many of these patents are governed by the "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards.  Basically the premise is that R&D companies are guaranteed to be paid, but generally have to license F/RAND patents to whoever wants to use them.

But given Apple's legal belligerence, the carriers have made a special exception when it comes to Apple.  And Apple, struggling in court, is growing increasingly frustrated.

The company's lawyers stated in a recent Motorola hearing, "By making false commitments that led to the establishment of worldwide standards incorporating its own patents and eliminating competing alternative technologies. Motorola [Mobility] has become a gatekeeper, accruing the power to harm or eliminate competition in the relevant markets if it so desires."

Apple takes issue with the fact that Motorola in its countersuit declines to differentiate the 7 F/RAND patents in its 18 patent collection.  In a previous case Finland's 
Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V) used F/RAND patents, along with other patents, to win a cross-licensing settlement with Apple.  However, apparently in that case Nokia differentiated the F/RAND patents in a special section of its court filings -- something Apple is supposedly okay with.

II. Apple Supporters Chime In

Apple has some allies in the F/RAND debate.

On Bloomberg TV the founder and CEO of a leading standards certifier M-CAM, Dr. David Martin, joined the attack, calling Motorola's patents "crap" and 
stating, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to FRAND commitments."

And pro-Apple patent blogger Florian Mueller 
comments, "[T]here have been completely off-base claims by some people that the 18 patents MMI is asserting against Apple are so powerful that they can protect Android as a whole (including other OEMs, such as Samsung, HTC and LG). [Google is] issuing statements that blow the strategic value of MMI's patents completely out of proportion. Googlorola won't help Samsung, as I explained before."

He quotes Apple's lawyers writing, "Samsung has unlawfully acquired monopoly power in markets for the technologies purportedly covered by patents which Samsung claims are essential to industry standards ('declared essential patents') by deceiving standards-setting organizations ('SSOs')... having obtained this ill-gotten monopoly power, Samsung has engaged in a relentless campaign of illegal and abusive assertions of its declared-essential patents to try to coerce Apple into tolerating Samsung's continuing imitation of [the iPhone and the iPad]."


Regardless of what Mr. Mueller says, it's hard to dispute that the "rules" of F/RAND are largely community dictated and ambiguous.  This is clearly a highly specialized case in which one company is using questionable claims (e.g. the ownership of all modern smart phone and tablet designs) to try to dictate its will on the market and grant itself a monopoly.  Whether the victims still have to bow down and offer their attacker F/RAND licensing is certainly debatable.

And Mr. Mueller's assertion that the IP won't help Motorola and Samsung's case seems disingenuous.  After all, if it were so inconsequential, why would Apple be so upset about it in court?

This isn't the first time that Apple has accused competitors over something it itself is doing.  
Apple chief executive and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs has bragged about his mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating [video], "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

But faced with large touch-screen competitors to his iPhone and iPad, the CEO and Apple's lawyers cried foul, accusing these rivals of "slavishly" copying the company's intellectual property.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hey Apple
By ThatNewGuy on 8/31/2011 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 5
Here's a tissue.

RE: Hey Apple
By frobizzle on 8/31/2011 9:59:50 AM , Rating: 5
Karma can be a real bitch, can't it? LOL!

RE: Hey Apple
By Bad-Karma on 8/31/2011 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 5
Aw, I never said anything bad about

RE: Hey Apple
By nikon133 on 8/31/2011 5:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
(soothing) I'm sure he was talking about that other Karma, across the road...

RE: Hey Apple
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 10:13:58 AM , Rating: 5
There's an even better way to "get back" at Apple...don't buy their products. They can cry and sue all they want in court, but I can ultimately win by never owning their Macbooks, iPods, iPads, or using iTunes. iHateApple.

RE: Hey Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 10:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
I was stuck with my really iPod luckily I was able to ditch that over the weekend. Now that I have Google Music I don't need my iPod :D

RE: Hey Apple
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 10:17:50 AM , Rating: 4
Google what? I'm too busy enjoying unlimited music with zune Pass, THE BEST music service on the net.

RE: Hey Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 10:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
I had it but I stopped it to go to a free service. I did like Zune but my wife didn't want me spending the 15 bucks a month for it. Plus I didn't have any device I could use with Zune. Google Music I can use on any computer.

RE: Hey Apple
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 10:25:12 AM , Rating: 5
You're a good man! I love zune Pass, but I can see your choice of Google Music is justified.

iclowns will continue paying $1+ per song, while I enjoy any song for $15..hehe.

RE: Hey Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 10:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I actually use frostwire and upload my music that way. So free service + free music + service on any device = triple win

But I did love my zune pass + the 10 credits per month.

RE: Hey Apple
By drycrust3 on 8/31/2011 12:33:48 PM , Rating: 4
I just use the radio.

RE: Hey Apple
By bupkus on 8/31/2011 7:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
Were you actually voted down or did you post with a value of 1?

RE: Hey Apple
By Solandri on 8/31/2011 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 1
iclowns will continue paying $1+ per song, while I enjoy any song for $15..hehe.

This isn't rocket science. $15/mo * 12 months = $180/yr.

If you on average listen to more than 180 different new songs per year, you are better off with the $15/mo subscription service.

If you on average add fewer than 180 different new songs to your music collection each year, you are better off buying them at $1/ea.

I typically buy less than $50 worth of music a year, so I do the latter and use the radio/Pandora for my "random music" fix. Different strokes for different folks.

RE: Hey Apple
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 4:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
That's not accurate in terms of the math. Since you can actually acquire, as in own, 10 new songs per month, assuming what I've read so far is true, it's far closer to something like $5 per month for whatever you listen to but don't want to own + $1 per song for 10 songs you do want to own. Of course, we both have some generalizations and assumptions in our logic. There is a tipping point but it's lower than 180 new songs a year. That'd be the max tipping point.

For me the iTunes approach would be far cheaper in the long run since I don't even add but a handful of new songs I'd like to own in a given year. That said, I just use Pandora.

RE: Hey Apple
By V-Money on 9/1/2011 7:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
A friend gave me that argument against zune (even though he spent much more than that on music) saying he preferred buying songs at a set price...I responded that the zunepass is an option, and you can buy songs at a set price as well. I never could figure out why people think additional options are a bad thing...

RE: Hey Apple
By firewall597 on 9/3/2011 6:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't exactly true.

First of all, you COULD buy a year's subscription at a discounted rate, like I do.

Second, you're only taking into account the songs you get to keep forever, which isn't nearly as important as the UNLIMITED downloads that you get to keep for as long as you're subscribing.

Then, once you stop paying and the dust settles, you at least get to keep a comparable amount of music to Apple's $1.29 songs.

RE: Hey Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
I did like Zune but my wife didn't want me spending the 15 bucks a month for it.

*whip crack sound effect*

Grow a pair man.

RE: Hey Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 3:17:10 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously dude...why don't you grow up before you start judging my marriage

RE: Hey Apple
By spread on 8/31/2011 4:08:13 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously dude...why don't you grow up before you start judging my marriage

He should have asked your wife for permission before judging you.

RE: Hey Apple
By amanojaku on 8/31/2011 3:21:47 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps he can learn some lessons from Cartman.

RE: Hey Apple
By AmbroseAthan on 8/31/2011 10:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
They are slightly different markets...

Google Music is free for storage of 20,000 songs you can than stream or download to anyplace else which supports it (Browser or App).

Zune Pass is $15/month and definitely a good deal for people who buy enough music to warrant the price.

Personally, between Pandora & Google Music, there is no need for me to spend $15 a month. I barely ever spend more than $15 a month on song purchases, so Zune Pass is not worth it. Pandora lets me find new stuff, Google Music lets me stream what I already have (both to my devices, EVO 3D, Asus Transformer, any computer).

RE: Hey Apple
By inighthawki on 8/31/2011 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 3
Pandora is always a good choice, but both pandora and google music have a huge flaw. Pandora you cannot choose the song you want (though it does open you up to songs yopu like that you didn't know exist) and google music may have storage for 20k songs, but you have to already own them.

Zune pass gives you unlimited access to any song you want at the cost of the monthly fee.

If you already have a lot of music, or you are one who just pirates all of their music, then I guess google music is a good choice, but otherwise the zune pass is quite an outstanding deal (especially since you get to download and keep a few songs per month on top of the streaming service).

RE: Hey Apple
By phatboye on 8/31/2011 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
get spotify.

RE: Hey Apple
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 11:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, well said.

I LOL'd so hard when Apple announced iCloud and everyone thought it was some sort of pay-for music service, "Hey let me charge you to upload music you own into our proprietary format and access it :)"

Zune = Most/all music and 10 song downloads, which pays for the $15. I love it and my zune HD.

Topic on hand, Apple should STFU and quit bellyaching. $70 billion in cash not enough for them?

RE: Hey Apple
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
My one issue with zune was I could not access Garth Brooks songs. It made me sad :(

RE: Hey Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget the podcasts! Nothing out there has more of a comprehensive podcast selection than Zunepass. Most podcasts on Zune are free, too!

RE: Hey Apple
By V-Money on 9/1/2011 7:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm only sad because they killed the Zune originals program awhile back. I love my HD with the artist series, but right before they killed it they had an option to create your own laser engraved image by uploading a pic. I personally love the zunepass and it is the only reason I would even consider switching to a WIN7/8 phone from my android (since you can use it on up to 5 phones as well as 3 zunes), but I'm still debating since I have most my collection on google music.

RE: Hey Apple
By woody1 on 9/1/2011 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 1
Personally, I prefer Spotify. You can listen to almost anything you can think of, on demand and it provide good playlist support, etc.

Another good alternative is MOG, which is similar to Spotify, but not as well known. MOG, unfortunately, has a good web app, but their Android app is terrible. So Spotify gets the nod.

RE: Hey Apple
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 12:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think ipods and other mp3 players are being made redundant by smart phones.

RE: Hey Apple
By Motoman on 8/31/2011 10:18:51 AM , Rating: 4
Verily. Their wildly abusive behavior, in this case in patent courts, is fueled by the vast amount of cash that rabid fanbois throw at them.

The reason Apple does all this BS is because the world is rife with morons that keep buying their products. If you want to know who to blame for this behavior, and you own an Apple product...look in the mirror.

RE: Hey Apple
By Raiders12 on 8/31/2011 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
I hold proud to the fact I've never bought an Apple product. I used iTunes for a millisecond since I was forced to DL it to get Quicktime...

RE: Hey Apple
By Motoman on 8/31/2011 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 1
You can get QT without iTunes.

And FFS people, you don't have to use iTunes with your iThing anyway. WinAmp, for example...which allows for advanced features that iTunes can't do. letting you delete a song from your iThing.

RE: Hey Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 2:57:40 PM , Rating: 1
And FFS people, you don't have to use iTunes with your iThing anyway. WinAmp, for example...which allows for advanced features that iTunes can't do.

Yes until the next firmware update for your iWhatever breaks that. iPod's used to sync with Windows Media Player and other third party apps and Apple deliberately broke that functionality in a firmware update.

Apple doesn't want you using ANYTHING but iTunes.

RE: Hey Apple
By Motoman on 8/31/2011 3:10:10 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, the WinAmp interface, and other apps like it, aren't using any portion of the Apple API that's proprietary. Ergo...nothing that Apple can do about it.

RE: Hey Apple
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 3:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Legally, or at least morally, anyway. Won't necessarily stop them though.

RE: Hey Apple
By Motoman on 8/31/2011 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're missing something...there's an open interface there of some kind that lots of products Real Player, WMP, so on and so forth. That's intended functionality. Has been that way for years.

RE: Hey Apple
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 10:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
So it's physically impossible for them to block the functionality? It seems doubtful that they ever would, I'm simply saying it's possible.

RE: Hey Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 11:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
They already have in the past, read below post. They can/will do it again.

RE: Hey Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 3
Then how do you explain blocking WMP syncing? I doubt Windows Media Player used any portion of the Apple API or anything of Apple that's proprietary.

If Apple wants to block Winamp from interfacing with the iPod, then they can and will. They already did this with the sixth generation iPods. So I don't understand how you can claim there is "nothing" Apple can do about it when they already have a history of being able to.

"the iTunesDB file now contains a couple of encrypted hashes that validate the information in the music list; this 'fingerprints' the iPod/iTunes pairing and also prevents third-party apps from modifying the iTunesDB without access to the hash key. Those applications now may show '0 songs' if they try to copy songs to the iPod."

Sorry but this is just one reason I will never own an iPod. They want it to be nothing but an iTunes delivery payment machine, and will force you to use it as they see fit.

RE: Hey Apple
By Tony Swash on 8/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hey Apple
By V-Money on 9/1/2011 7:13:50 PM , Rating: 3
I think hes referring to the fact you can delete from the device itself without connecting it to a computer.

RE: Hey Apple
By nafhan on 9/1/2011 2:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even better: you can get most Quicktime's playback functionality without Quicktime by using QT Lite! Although... it's probably been years since I've needed to play a Quicktime file.

RE: Hey Apple
By adiposity on 8/31/2011 1:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
As the other person said, you don't need iTunes to get Quicktime (or vice versa). Additionally, you don't need Quicktime (although QT Lite is of questionable legality).

RE: Hey Apple
By icemansims on 8/31/2011 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I actually own an EVO and an Android tablet, so I might be biased, but the problem I see with JUST not purchasing Apple products is if they become a monopoly on the market like they're trying to do. There needs to be more than just a boycott of their products to keep them in check.

RE: Hey Apple
By dgingeri on 8/31/2011 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 3
I've owned all of 3 Apple products, and one of those was second hand for free. I owned 2 iPod nanos and a Mac mouse someone gave me at a garage sale. I had major quality problems with both iPods, and horrible software problems with iTunes. I have since sworn off all Apple products.

However, I have never called on friends to avoid their products, until now. This particular instance has prompted me to post on Facebook a call to all my friends to boycott Apple products. This really pisses me off.

RE: Hey Apple
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:59:56 AM , Rating: 4
I had a mac in the early 90's until I found out that I couldn't play any good games and had a fraction of the available software. Now you pay twice the price over a windows PC and still cant play games and have a fraction of the available software. go figure

RE: Hey Apple
By overlandpark4me on 9/1/2011 9:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
That will never happen. Too many sheep out there.

RE: Hey Apple
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 11:57:40 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, sweeet irony! Ya gotta hate apple.

RE: Hey Apple
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 12:02:15 PM , Rating: 5
By the way apple that is why it was called patent mutually assured destruction. You should not have pressed the red button.

RE: Hey Apple
By Reality1000 on 8/31/2011 3:52:07 PM , Rating: 5
"Those meanies -- we were merely trying to enforce our bogus patent on "everything shiny and plastic", and trying to shut down their businesses, when out of the blue, those horrible, horrible, vicious people maliciously defended themselves! We demand you smite them, your honor!"

When you can't compete, you sue. And that's what Apple do.

Who sh!t in his cereal?
By blueaurora on 8/31/2011 10:21:20 AM , Rating: 5
This was written with a bit of bias... it didn't need to be but it made me love it even more.

I may read this to my daughter as a nightly story teaching values and the reality of karma :)

RE: Who sh!t in his cereal?
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 10:24:17 AM , Rating: 5
That's a +6

RE: Who sh!t in his cereal?
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 11:18:17 AM , Rating: 5
Once upon a time Eve took a bite out of an Apple, then Steve Jobs stole it and made it his logo and sued Eve for trademark infringement.

RE: Who sh!t in his cereal?
By theapparition on 8/31/2011 3:25:28 PM , Rating: 4
So Steve Jobs was Satan in the garden, huh.

Makes sense.

RE: Who sh!t in his cereal?
By phantom505 on 9/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Who sh!t in his cereal?
By The0ne on 9/1/2011 3:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, but this crap baffles me more than the meaning of Life itself! Why do people still zombie after this company's products!!! Nevermind, I have nieces and nephews and some of them care more about the appearance and image than anything else.

Misdirection by omission
By amanojaku on 8/31/2011 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 4
A love the AppleInsider link:

At the bottom you see an image of Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iphone and iPad. Obviously, the idea is to lead you to thinking Samsung made smaller phones and tablets because of Apple, which is partly true.

But there are a few issues with the image. All of the Apple devices displayed are models from 2010 or later. The Samsung models run the gamut: the "after" models are from 2010 or later, but the before models are from 2006 or earlier. Tech has slimmed down and powered up significantly the in years between 2006 and 2010, in addition to dropping in price. Even the iPhone lost ~25% of its thickness from first to current generation, while doubling its processor speed. The original was bulky and slow, and don't pretend it wasn't.

Additionally, older tablets emulated PCs, badly. Current tablets are different in that they do not have a desktop OS, have simpler, less-functional APIs, lack extended connectivity options (Ethernet, various forms of removable storage, etc...), and basically are limited-function appliances. Fortunately, the functions they are designed for are pretty vast NOW, but it was virtually impossible to build an affordable, slim, 10", 10-hour video and gaming device back in 2005.

In fact, it still is. $500 for a friggin' tablet...

RE: Misdirection by omission
By sprockkets on 8/31/2011 12:33:44 PM , Rating: 3
It's an article written by Steve Job's personal hand job boy, Daniel Dildo.

He's quite one sided with everything.

Read about others who point out his hypocrisy all the time

RE: Misdirection by omission
By masamasa on 9/1/2011 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Apple holds the patent that allows them to make slimmer, smaller, lighter tablets and devices while the competitors cannot. Doesn't anyone here know that? Jeez...

RE: Misdirection by omission
By Drkovrload on 9/5/2011 6:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
Idk if anyone else noticed, but even on Samsungs older devices they have a large screen with a square shaped main button centered under it(obviously with other keys because no touchscreen). I think appleinsider just made another point in Samsungs progression of design rather than "stealing".

By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 9:53:40 AM , Rating: 5
Pot. Meet Kettle.

Yo Apple
By Sazabi19 on 8/31/2011 9:55:26 AM , Rating: 5
Fuck you!

By KrayLoN on 8/31/2011 10:38:56 AM , Rating: 5
Don't mess with a wasp's nest unless you are prepared to be stung.

Another thing he taught me was to keep my friends close and my enemies closer. Instead of starting a war with them, you should have worked out some agreement with them. I'm sure it would have cost everyone involved less money than the legal fees you all are going to pay.

This whole panent war thing is getitng out of hand.What ever happend to the old days when a company squashed the competition by coming out with a better product rather than crying about it?

When is it going to sink in ??
By wempa on 8/31/2011 12:27:04 PM , Rating: 3
When is it going to become obvious and a priority to reform the whole patent system as it pertains to technology ? This is beyond ridiculous. Make it so that only very specific things can be patented and that the people issuing/denying these patents understand the technology. It's become so ridiculous now where every company has to load up on vague patents so that they can protect themselves when somebody else sue them for violating the "pressing the OK" button to confirm your choice patent.

RE: When is it going to sink in ??
By JonB on 8/31/2011 3:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
When the number of Patent Lawyers is cut by 80%.

Like so many things in Washington, the Lobbyists and their PAC money for groups like Patent Lawyers and Corporate Tax Lawyers make sure nothing changes for the better (for us, anyway).

F/RAND patents
By fic2 on 8/31/2011 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 3
Many of these patents are governed by the "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (F/RAND) principle, as they were developed as part of industry standards. Basically the premise is that R&D companies are guaranteed to be paid, but generally have to license F/RAND patents to whoever wants to use them.

Wouldn't it be better to only be required to license F/RAND patents to companies that reciprocate with their patents?

RE: F/RAND patents
By lukarak on 8/31/2011 10:54:45 AM , Rating: 1
Why? If you wanted to make your patent a standard, then you have to let go of some of your rights, in this case to chose who uses it (because it's a standard). You still get paid for usage of your 'inventions' but as a standard, it must be available for all to use.

By ipay on 8/31/2011 5:58:34 PM , Rating: 3
And if that was the whole story, they'd be right to be upset.

The larger picture, however, is that Apple tried playing hardball first. And now they really expect their targets not to respond in kind?

I think Apple is starting to realize why all the phone companies didn't start a patent war amongst themselves before now - because a lot of players in the industry have the ability to harm each other. They all used to politely cross-license everything to each other to avoid paying the lawyers, but Apple thought they had a stronger hand than everyone else.

Apple =
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/31/2011 9:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
Lame, as usual

By SniperWulf on 8/31/2011 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
The chickens have come home to roost....

Don't start none.
Won't be none.

Apple, you've made your bed.
By DeluxeTea on 8/31/2011 10:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
Now lie in it.

By RedemptionAD on 8/31/2011 10:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hold your tongue and try to say should give you an idea of what the company really is. ;)

By danjw1 on 8/31/2011 11:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
Apple needs to learn you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. They started this, now they have to live with the consequences. Tough luck Apple.

By TheSev on 8/31/2011 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

cry me a river....
By M4gery on 8/31/2011 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
... and go drown in it.

By nafhan on 9/1/2011 2:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
So, basically what Apple's saying is that REAL technological advances should be available for everyone to use, but stuff like rectangle shaped devices or having just one button is innovative and needs to be protected??? Amazing...

Patent Wars
By SFreptile on 9/1/2011 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
Typically, a patent suit is over one or two utility patent where the prior art can be examined well enough. The Apple Armageddon assault on Samsung is so unique, that I created a blog devoted to the Northern District case. No one can properly examine all the art involved without crowd sourcing.

Admittedly there is a small pony of mine in the race.


By nocturne_81 on 9/1/2011 5:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly cannot find any reason why every single one of Apple's suits haven't simply been tossed out as lack of evidence. Of course, the idea to obfuscate the filing by including a few dozen garbage patents to allow the suit to boil down to a few key design and ui patents have been largely successful, seemingly providing merit for their case.

So you have a patent for a thin, rectangular object with a minimalist hardware interface and a screen on the front... well, take that design and put it on it's side with the screen facing towards you.. starts to resemble an lcd screen, right? That's something Samsung should have no trouble providing prior art for -- hell, they've been doing it for 20+ years. I also found the inclusion of footage from Star Trek and various other sci-fi series highly amusing, and quite telling -- after all, these are the exact same devices we've been dreaming up for decades, and technology has only recently been able to bring them to fruition.

As for the ui methods patents.. how did Apple somehow revolutionize scrolling..? Sure, iOS is rife with gimmicks in it's gui -- but none are original, just a well assembled variety of methods echoed throughout decades of software, OS's, and, more than anything, content-driven websites.

As for the apple fanboys trying to legitimize these suits, they only want to feel original, even special in a way. After all, that's the main reason they buy apple products -- they automatically make you an artist or DJ with one simple purchase... x]

By overlandpark4me on 9/1/2011 9:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
April Fool's Day

Sour grapes!.
By fteoath64 on 9/7/2011 3:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, after their RockStar consortium bidded $4.5B for the Nortel patents and now seeing that the Moto patents are actually rather potent compared to the Nortel stuff. So those lawyers are trying to protect their a$$ by going on the offensive.

It is such childishness. I hope Goggle counter sues after the Samsung judgement so it will send Apple with its tail behind its back. Oh, better still Google team up with Nokia for a suit towards Apple. How's that ?. [ie all 500+ mobile patents pertinent to mobile handsets].

By grwww on 9/20/2011 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
What most people are missing out on, is that Apple is saying "why don't you innovate" regarding the design of the shape, look and controls of the UI. They are not saying "hey, you can't use cellular technologies on your devices until you let us copy your design", as Samsung is doing. There is a huge difference!

All of you Apple haters could really use a dose of reality when it comes to the economy. Apple is succeeding because of service, not because of their device technologies being the absolute best. They design stuff to be supportable and fit their business model. It's quite a different story than what you will find anywhere else in the technology market. All of the characteristics of their hardware design fit into the business model and allow them to excel as a hardware vendor.

That's why, from my perspective anyway, that Apple is playing hard nosed about people copying their designs. It controls how easy the devices are to handle, how well they stand up to being dropped and all kinds of issues related.

If they wanted everyone to have that advantage, they'd of posted GPL licensed drawings. But, they didn't. Do you think that they should have to, just because everyone likes their designs and wants to copy them?

If Apple's stuff is not worth the patents issued, then why does everyone want to license or illegally copy the designs? The cheap companies don't want to invest in any loss of time to market to have to innovate, or their not talented enough to actually innovate it seems to me...

It all come back to you
By jecs on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: It all come back to you
By danjw1 on 8/31/2011 11:52:39 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, it was so obvious of a copy that Apple felt they needed to alter photos of the devices to make them look more like their own. Give me a break. Apple started this, they need to live with the consequences.

RE: It all come back to you
By Solandri on 8/31/2011 4:44:33 PM , Rating: 3
Personally, I don't think either company copied. But if the standard of evidence Apple fans are going to use is how similar the devices look, then by their standard Apple is clearly the one who copied.

RE: It all come back to you
By williamsck1 on 8/31/2011 11:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
Its not that we hate apple or its line of products. Hell, they forced the industry to catch up. Its we hate how they play. We don’t like Android because its taking a chunk of our pie attitude so let’s go get them thru litigation in the courts. We got an IP for the “Slide to Unlock” so let us use that one and get Sammy on it. Now that Google has the ammo, which they have been forced to get because of apple’s attitude towards Android and its OEM’s, they can reach out and touch Apple. This may make Apple play fair. Maybe Uncle Steve saw the writing on the wall and decided to step down so it didn’t happen on his watch.

RE: It all come back to you
By JasonMick on 8/31/2011 1:42:19 PM , Rating: 5
It looks this round is for Samsung

Apple cannot try to protect themselves to the point where they want a different treatment in court. So if they fail protect their iDevices, then be it.

What is it??

However as a digital artist I can't never justify Samsung copying/stilling, etc and NO matter if Steve Jobs or someone else says so I don't respect stilling as an art expression. Although I like the Galaxy line and I can recognize a merit in them I can see to much of Apple's own design. Like it or not there are virtual infinite ways to approach a design. And to me there is no justification on the "Apple trying to monopolize the tablet design" argument. I bet in the next incarnations we will see more differentiated devices and equally winning designs from someone else. Come on!

First I'm not sure if Samsung was "stilling" from Apple, but common sense would say that at least they were NOT "stealing" from Apple.

If you're a graphic artist (I'm an amateur graphic artist myself), you should be able to recognize the striking visual differences between Samsung's devices and Apple's, which are as striking as any similarities.

Ultimately the center of every modern tablet is a touchscreen -- the near sole source of interaction. Thus you can expect designs to look slightly similar. This isn't "stealing" or "copying", it's the state of the art.

Apple makes the fallacy of comparing tablets from years ago to the designs presently available.

Until a few years ago, large multi-touch displays were manufactured by no one and the technology to mass produce them was still being worked out. In short, Apple's competitors didn't make a device that looked somewhat iPad like 10 years ago, because the technology to mass produce that kind of device DIDN'T EXIST.

Apple didn't develop and didn't patent that production technology.

Instead it filed general patents multi-touch interface technology, fraudulently passing off methods that were freely published in academic literature two decades prior as its own new "inventions".

Steve Jobs says Apple was great at "stealing" -- Samsung never claimed to be great at stealing. And indeed Samsung wasn't crazy/arrogant enough to try to claim ownership of multi-touch, something that had long ago entered into the public domain. Apple was, and thanks to its high priced legal team somehow squeaked the patent by incompetent reviewers at the USPTO and other international patent offices.

Also I don't understand why Apple haters want to defeat Apple is they end up with at least some of Apple taste in other devices. If you hate something try something different and don'r include in your diet the same ingredient you hate.

So no one can use the same components as Apple? I supposed HP and Dell should be banned from making computers with RAM and CPUs? And Intel should be banned from making chips with transistors? And Samsung, Motorola, and HTC should be banned from making smart phones.

If anything Apple imitated shamelessly. It copied from science fiction, it copied from academia, it copied from competitors. It merged these elements into undeniably slick packages (the iPhone, 2007, and iPad, 2009), and managed to get those packages out the door shortly before its rivals.

And then it had the audacity to claim its "inventions" were original, when in fact there was a tremendous volume of prior art THEY "stole" from.

RE: It all come back to you
By williamsck1 on 8/31/2011 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. Remember...Apple did create the Smartphone as Al Gore created the internet

RE: It all come back to you
By mritter1981 on 8/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: It all come back to you
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 3:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
The metaphor was completely lost on you. We know Al Gore didn't invent the internet. That was the whole point.

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 8/31/2011 3:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Then, there is the issue that Al Gore never said he invented the internet...

RE: It all come back to you
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not it's true is irrelevant to the metaphor.

RE: It all come back to you
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 3:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
Looking back at the OP I realize it's actually a simile, not a metaphor. My bad.

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 8/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: It all come back to you
By JasonMick on 8/31/2011 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Come to think of it, Steve Jobs never claimed to invent the iPhone...


He did claim that... he is listed as an inventor in many iPhone-related patents, including the all important "iPhone design patent" that Samsung supposedly "slavishly" violated...

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 8/31/2011 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, fair enough. My point was really about Al Gore, I admit to not having checked on whether Steve Jobs "claimed to invent the iPhone."

Although, being one of 20 other people listed on a patent for a device is hardly "claiming to invent" it. At best, it means you claimed to partially contribute to its invention.

RE: It all come back to you
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is a serious strawman since the OP didn't even mention Steve Jobs or iPhone but rather Apple and smartphone. Apple may not have directly said they invented the smartphone but they are certainly acting like it.

Since we somehow got into an argument over this simile I'll go ahead and explain it for you. The JOKE, important point, is that many believe Al Gore to have said he invented the internet when he did not just as many believe that Apple said, or acts if you prefer, that they invented the smartphone.

A joke does not have to be factually accurate and is why the accuracy of it is irrelevant. I suppose you would complain about all the dumb blond jokes or the "yo mamma" jokes?

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 8/31/2011 5:15:32 PM , Rating: 1
I got the joke, I didn't have an issue with it. I was just saying, as long as you are going to pick it apart, the Al Gore thing was factually wrong.

And the Steve Jobs bit was a joke from me, I didn't even look to see that the original post technically mentioned Apple and not Jobs. My point was only that drawing comparisons to accusations that were false isn't the best way to mock someone.

Anyway, I feel deeply ashamed for rendering an xkcd cartoon accurate with my responses.

RE: It all come back to you
By Alexstarfire on 8/31/2011 10:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Except you were the one picking it apart, no one else was.

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 9/1/2011 12:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to the post that tried to document how Al Gore did not invent the internet. As long as you are going to prove he didn't invent it, you might also mention that he didn't ever claim to.

RE: It all come back to you
By nocturne_81 on 9/1/2011 5:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, he kind of did.. x]

It was right during a nationally televised debate where Bush and Gore were having a bit of a back-and-forth about which of them were more 'tech friendly', and Gore got overly exasperated and exclaimed loudly, "well, I invented the internet!".

To his credit, though.. He was on the armed services committee at the time that the internet was turned over as a public utility, an action many do largely accredit to Gore.

RE: It all come back to you
By adiposity on 9/1/2011 6:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
RE: It all come back to you
By ipay on 8/31/2011 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
And indeed Samsung wasn't crazy/arrogant enough to try to claim ownership of multi-touch, something that had long ago entered into the public domain. Apple was, and thanks to its high priced legal team somehow squeaked the patent by incompetent reviewers at the USPTO and other international patent offices.

It hardly takes a crack legal team to get those patents. People have literally submitted patent applications for toasting bread and swinging on a child's swingset as jokes, and they were rubber stamped just like all the others. That's why any lawyer will tell you no patent is actually valid until it has been tested and won in a court case. The problem is that when major corporations like Apple are involved, they can tie you up in court for years and cost you millions no matter how stupid the patent is, and so many people just settle out of court without a fight.

RE: It all come back to you
By jecs on 8/31/2011 7:32:02 PM , Rating: 1
I read also Samsung failed in court with a 2010 Odyssey tablet argument because that device in the movie was a tv and not a tablet. But Apple Photoshoped Samsung's prototypes, right?. This looks bad both companies. And Apple already lost a lot of legal ground on the tablet side.

Again, I like the Galaxy tablet but as striking those differences may look to you I would also say it is an improvement and an iteration from the iPad. They are cousins, but the iPad was first to market. And this is legally very important for this dispute.

Also the Galaxy smartphones are very similar to the iPhones and this is something extremely conflictive for public perception.

Inside a court room this needs to be legally solved beyond anyone point of view, personal perception or opinion.

How close could 2 competing and successful products be in the market at the same time? Each country or market needs to establish this.

But did Apple had any knowledge on Samsung's tablet prototypes? Patents are given for prototypes too. Samsung can't deny the iPad or the iPhone came first to market before the Galaxy line. Why Samsung did not demanded Apple when the iPhone or the iPad launched. Is it because they are a friendly legal company? I am afraid that would be a very bad argument.

Samsung has powerful lawyers who know Apple business. Where are Samsung's patents for those prototypes? Legally it looks weak. Apple could also have different prototypes hidden and waiting. But when the iPad launched nobody demanded the iPad look or shape with a valid patent.

So. Is it that Samsung couldn't produce another design, or is it they did not really wanted to create a new product with a look clearly distinctive from Apple devices. Are they unable to produce different prototypes?

And yes there should be legal protection for some simple images, proportions, color, textures or shapes and in its simplest essential expression this is the legal company LOGO, or even a product. Would you think Mercedez is entitled to own a 3 point start shape inside a circle forever?

Who gets to be protected with the patent? Whoever comes first with a valid concept. It Is a well known system and valid for any side.

In art we learn to copy from the masters. But I disagree with Steve Jobs because this is acceptable for beginners or wannabes but not for true masters. In the present industry Apple and Samsung are both big global players.

RE: It all come back to you
By robinthakur on 9/6/2011 11:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, someone clearly forgot the shockwaves caused by the iPhone to the entire industry when Apple entered it in 2007, instantly making everything else on the market look like an antique. Android most definitely owes the iPhone everything. All of their current success in the field comes from that wow moment when people first saw or used one. However, whether you can patent a revolutionary device's "wow factor" remains to be seen. Apple's sucess is due far more end-to-end, in actually packaging wonderful features in stunning poducts and getting them to market in a form understandable to regular members of the public by marketing them. They are incredibly efficient.

RE: It all come back to you
By Reality1000 on 8/31/2011 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Also I don't understand why Apple haters want to defeat Apple"

Actually you got that wrong. I don't give a tinker's damn about Apple. Their Chinese crap is over-hyped and overpriced and their cultists can happily waste all the money they want and freely drink all the Kool-Ade Apple cares to serve them. I'm not going to sell my house to buy one of their products when I can get essentially the thing for a tiny fraction of the cost. After all I'm not one of the members of the Apple cult, who moos idiotically about how Apple's quality is higher than the competitors. I'm sure those "geniuses" will be be saying that Apple's tablet display is "superior" to Samsung's, blissfully and ignorantly unaware that Samsung builds many of Apple's tablet displays.

I don't really care about any of that though. What I do care about is Apple is actively trying to shut down my access to Android tablets and Android smart phones that I do intend to buy. And they're trying to do it with bogus patents like the patent on a tablet that is "rectangular with rounded corners". And the stupid thing about it is I'm not even an Apple customer. Since I have the ability to reason I won't pay their idiotic prices, after all, as I mentioned before, I'm not an Apple cultist. (And they probably don't consider me "worthy" enough to buy their product even if I was dumb enough to try.)

So I'm not their customer, they don't want me as their customer, but with true cultist mentality they don't want me to buy from anyone else either.

That's what bugs me about Apple. They picked the fight with me and the companies I want to deal with. If Apple wants to slink off and be molly-coddled by their cultists, that's fine with me. Live and let live. But iff they want to screw with me and my choices than I say it's time to nuke 'em into the stone age. And that's what Google/Motorola and Samsung intend to do.

Fair enough?

RE: It all come back to you
By TakinYourPoints on 8/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: It all come back to you
By bupkus on 8/31/2011 7:32:24 PM , Rating: 1
...I can see to[too] much of Apple's own design. Like it or not there are virtual infinite ways to approach a design.
All design is limited by rules of physics, geometry and economics.

Example: If you want a shape that minimizes the ratio of surface area to volume you can't do better than a sphere.

If you want to provide a surface area (for display purposes) with both columns and rows you are best served by a parallelogram with right angles--a rectangle.
If this device must have volume to enclose electronics and image displaying technology a special version of a parallelapiped, called a rectangular prism is the obvious choice.
Consider a package that holds cigarettes or cigarettes themselves. Ever see much variation there?

To the judges ruling in these cases... "Look around you."

RE: It all come back to you
By jecs on 8/31/2011 8:26:46 PM , Rating: 1
We humans are extremely capable to perceive very small change in proportions as it happens with our faces. But it also happens with our bodies and even with our motions.

Good artists all imitate nature and human bodies with design, and you can't accuse a female body to be repetitive, right? However we all have a head, torso, legs, hands, fingers, nails, hairs, shades, anomalies, even the skin has a great expression.

What you are arguing is very interesting but try to discus that with a talented artist, best if he is an skillful anatomy creative.

Samsung could use a distinctive border. Put buttons or lights in it. They could play with shapes, strait lines, embossed shapes or combination of elements, just on the borders.

I am saying this because I can produce enough differences, and a hundred creatives will come with an incredibly wide variation.

And I can tell you I don't even like iPads. I don't like their sizes or proportions. However I like Apple simplicity, materials and the line itself.

Steve Jobs and Picasso
By Willhouse on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Steve Jobs and Picasso
By adiposity on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
By bucefalus44 on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
By murray13 on 8/31/2011 4:02:52 PM , Rating: 4
How many automobiles on the road look very similar? Most of them, why? It's what the consumers want!!! If Apple's stuff wasn't selling, no one would be making similar stuff. You didn't see a copy of the Apple Lisa, yea I know lame example.

Apple is just pissed because their 'obvious' patents aren't working, and others 'standard' patents are. I wonder why that is? Hmmm, could it be that the others have been in the handheld communication device market longer than Apple?

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki