backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Dec 14 at 9:01 AM

Judge calls out Apple on its ubiquitous design claims

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) has fallen behind top Android smartphone manufacturer Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) in global sales.  Analysts say it could face a similar fate in the tablet market by 2014 or 2015.  Apple insists that Android is only beating it in sales because it "stole" its intellectual property.  

Unable to stop the Android juggernaut on the market, it has taken the top Android smartphone manufacturers to court [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] [9][10][11], trying to prove they infringed on its often ubiquitous patents, which included claims of inventing multi-touch and the swipe unlock.  The Android manufacturers have fought back: Samsung and Apple have over 80 smartphone-related suits and counter-suits to date in courts around the world, since the start of the war.

I. Samsung Can Continue to Sell its Products

Late Friday in the U.S., a judge in Northern District Californian federal courtJudge Lucy H. Koh, dealt a major setback to Apple's international campaign against Samsung.  Following earlier statements where she said she would "likely" deny Apple's request for preliminary injunction, she made it final -- no injunction for Apple.

An injunction could have allowed Apple to ban the sale of all Samsung smartphones in the U.S., as well as imports, without Apple having to work through the full standard due process procedure.   Instead, the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets and other popular models like the Infuse 4G and Droid Charge will continue to be available to holiday shoppers.

Samsung spokersperson Jason Kim told Reuters in an email, "This ruling confirms our long-held view that Apple's arguments lack merit."

Apple's spokesperson Kristin Huguet disappointedly parrotted her company's previous statement: "[Samsung] blatant copying (Apple) is wrong."

The full PDF of the ruling is available here.

II. Samsung Likely Infringes Apple's Technology, But Not Its Design

While Judge Koh didn't necessarily dismiss the merits of Apple's lone technology patent in the case -- U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which covers a menu bounce animation -- she raised serious concerns about what she viewed as Apple's attempts to position itself as the lone manufacture of functional tablets and smartphones.

She comments that "a size that can be handheld, a screen that encompasses a large portion of the front face of the smartphone, and a speaker on the upper portion of the front face of the product" are functional characteristics, not aesthetic ones and thus should not be protected by Apple's design patents.

Apple asserts that it owns the exclusive rights internationally to produce "minimalist" (that term being the summary of Apple's more verbose claim by a judge in Germany) tablets -- thin, rectangular touch-screen driven tablets with few face buttons.  Thus far Germany has been the only nation to buy such a claim.

Judge Koh's comments call into question whether Apple will be able to successfully prove that Samsung is infringing its design patents -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677D593,087, and D504,889 -- given the compelling differences that exist between Samsung and Apple's product lines once you look past basic form factor.

As for the technology claim, Judge Koh ruled that the menu animation wasn't enough to cause "irreparable harm" to Apple, necessitating a sales ban.  She comments, "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed."

She did however indicate that Samsung likely infringed on the patent by including a similar animation in its distribution of the Android operatings system.  She wrote, "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial."

Apple must now wait until July 30, 2012 to wrap up that case, though.

III. Legal Situation Grows Dire For Apple

Things are looking bad internationally for Apple's legal campaign against Android.  So far its only victories have been relatively inconsequential ones, with one exception.

A victory in Australian court, in which a single judge granted a preliminary injunction banning Samsung tablet sales was overturned by a three judge panel earlier this week.  While an appeal from Apple puts Samsung's sales down under on ice until Dec. 9, it seems unlikely that Apple will be able to sway the three judge panel, given how critical they were of the idea of a preliminary injunction.  Assuming Samsung's triumph is preserved, it will be able hit the market just in time for the final leg of holiday sales.

Elsewhere, in the Netherlands Samsung has escaped a sales ban by modifying its phones' Android distribution to remove the aforementioned "bounce" animation.  It looks likely that a similar loss, modification, and market reinstatement will occur for Samsung in the U.S.  Such a process does little to help Apple as it offers virtually no sales delay for Samsung and no serious damage to the quality of Samsung's product.

The lone sign of hope for Apple comes in Germany, Europe's third largest tablet market.  A German court ruled in a lawsuit solely dealing with Samsung's tablets that all of Samsung's tablets violated the design (not technology) patents held by Apple in the European Union.  This rulign was the polar opposite of the decision by a Netherlands court, which ruled, like the U.S. court, that Apple's design claims were too broad.

Samsung yielded to the German Judge's ruling, redesigning its product to have a different frame and repositioning its elements such as the speaker and buttons.  Apple however has filed a second suit against the new design, which should soon go on sale.  It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad.  The German justice system has not yet decided whether or not to authorize Apple's request for a new preliminary injunction.

If Apple continues to lose or post inconsequential wins in the majority of its court cases the company may be forced to decide between financial success and continuing its personal legal vendetta against Android.  Late company co-founder and CEO Steve P. Jobs, described his final plan for his beloved company remarking, "I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product." 

His successors could be forced to make the tough decision of whether to follow that plan -- whether to exhaust all of the company's fortune on trying to "out-sue" its Android rivals.

Sources: Ruling via The Verge, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


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

Makes me laugh
By kamel5547 on 12/3/2011 10:06:36 PM , Rating: 5
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product"

How many of Apple's "inventions", innovations, and patent are based on someone else's work. Seriously...




RE: Makes me laugh
By honkj on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/14/2011 8:49:13 AM , Rating: 1
Yea, to bad it's not accurate...


RE: Makes me laugh
By harshbarj on 12/4/2011 10:06:01 AM , Rating: 5
Great revisionist history! Apple did not pay stock to use ideas from xerox, but to simply visit and look at them. From Wikipedia "Jobs had negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options". Note it says SEE and not BUY.

Also if Apple had paid Xerox for the right is use this technology as you claim, why did they later sue apple for using this technology.

From the NY times...
"Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh."

Now yes, a judge later dismissed the lawsuit, but it's clear xerox did not OK apple to use this technology, technology that no one can argue Xerox came up with first.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Motoman on 12/4/2011 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 5
...not to mention Jobs' famous exclamations about how they were going to be "shameless" about stealing.

Shameless. Which is the same way they approach everything else...no shame at all.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By its tom hanks on 12/4/2011 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...that is silly

quote:
...with is silly


trolling multiple websites to blindly defend apple (and at the same time make apple users around the world look retarded) is a bit silly as well, wouldn't one as bright as yourself agree?


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By nikon133 on 12/4/2011 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 5
Projecting a little bit, are we? I've never-ever-EVER seen such paranoia around here like the one so common at Apple Insider. Every article related to (and by default heavily biased against) MS and Google starts with same parade of hatred, rage, poor attempts of being smug and "elitist", all laced with rich underlying layer of inferiority complex; it seems too many Apple users still remember where Apple was not so many years ago, and fear it might go back there again.

That being said. Apple addressed courts around the globe to protect what they perceived as their patented IP. So far, majority of those claims were turned down... so, is it about time to quit saying everyone is ripping off Apple's ideas? Or shall we keep on hanging onto immortal SJ's words of "Courts are doing it wrong"?


RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 10:01:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I've never-ever-EVER seen such paranoia around here like the one so common at Apple Insider. Every article related to (and by default heavily biased against) MS and Google starts with same parade of hatred, rage, poor attempts of being smug and "elitist", all laced with rich underlying layer of inferiority complex;


Indeed. The site features so little apple news. It basically is run by Daniel Dilger, aka by pseudonyms Prince McLean and Slash Lane, which he uses to sockpuppet. One only has to view their forums of all of them fapping to the news of their competitors.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 8:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
What's funny is that Tony and Takin based a large portion of their arguments on the court rulings in Germany and Australia. A "look, see we were right!" approach.

Now that those courts and the U.S court (the one that actually matters) have gone the other way, they're reversing their earlier positions of appealing to a higher authority. Now court rulings suddenly do not matter, and Android is still a "stolen" product.

I guess they think they can have it both ways and eat their Apple pie too lol.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 10:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
Who cares what you think anymore? Have another -1 on the house bud.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 10:39:14 PM , Rating: 1
Can't say I really care what the deluded and irrelevant hivemind here thinks. :)


RE: Makes me laugh
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 10:49:35 PM , Rating: 1
Nice hypocrisy lol

quote:
You clearly do. It is adorable that you took the time to address my posts, so mad. I'd be mad too if I bought trash.


Clearly YOU care or you wouldn't come here and post your bullcrap knowing you'll be smacked down for it day after day. There's nothing more pathetic than someone who refuses to accept he's not wanted. Why would you want to be another Tony? Who want's to be THAT guy lol.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 11:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
I just post facts, especially when someone is clearly wrong. I can't help it how people react if they're so blinded by their fanboyism.

And believe me, if I didn't see DailyDerp on the Anandtech sidebar I wouldn't be here. I hate that this clownshow is only a click a way.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 11:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I address the subject, you actually call out people in subthreads where they aren't even participating. I don't do that, so no hypocrisy here.

It's so cute that you have a crush, can't stop thinking about me.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 10:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly do. It is adorable that you took the time to address my posts, so mad. I'd be mad too if I bought trash.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/6/2011 8:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
Garbage to you , and fortunately, your opinion is just that, an opinion.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/14/2011 8:51:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
You, troll.


RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 2:40:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Or one can just wait for someone else to do all the hard work, of assembling the good, and sometimes great, ideas, the designing of the product, the intense polishing of that design, and then just copy it. That's certainly a viable business model and one that many companies in the tech arena pursue. Watch what is a success and slavishly, but often poorly, copy it.


So you are perfectly ok then with Apple taking Android's notifications, but not when others take ideas from apple?

quote:
('hey this iPad thing is selling like hotcakes, let's make something that looks exactly like it right down to the packaging and sell it'). One is, I think, acceptable and one is not. One is good for the development of technology products and one is not.


Did anyone steal the source code to iOS? No. Everyone spent money and time to develop their own products. And apple's designs are all based on Braun's design philosophies, and he doesn't have a design patent war with anyone.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 8:00:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I am perfectly Ok with Apple copying the notification method because it was not patented or copyrighted and it was a good idea inserted in a great product which was not itself copied.


Oh, so copying that was OK because it wasn't patented, even though patents don't cover ideas in the first place and apple is about to find that out thankfully in court?

quote:
Blatant copying of products and the innovations of other with the addition of no originality is a bit like obscenity really - hard to define but one knows when one encounters it. You and I both know that Apple has been the unpaid unofficial R&D department of the whole tech sector for a long time. What pisses you off is that Apple isn't a loser anymore - that's it's playing to win.


So define "blatent", because last time I checked, apple didn't invent the cell phone, didn't invent the touch screen, didn't invent the capacitive style touch screen, didn't invent the orientation sensor routine, didn't invent the proximity sensor, and so on. Which means, wait for it, apple took what already was invented and simply made it better, just like everyone else does.

quote:
When one says Samsung 'developed' it's tablets in what sense do mean that? The OS came from Google which in turn had cloned iOS and the form factor and industrial design was copied wholesale from Apple.


Spare us the bullsht. "Cloned" means they illegally copied source code or simply took everything verbatim, while in actuality, Honeycomb had a multi-tasking solution in place since day one, still features a different home screen, still has a different dock or springboard, while the ipad was still half baked with missing features upon launch.

quote:
Are you really arguing that if Apple had not launched the iPad and if it had not been a gigantic success that Samsung would have come up with a tablet that looked just like that completely independently?


Obviously looking at sales numbers of everyone else vs. the ipad, the success of it has more to do with the ecosystem and not the simple fact it is a tablet. Which is why unless Google fixes their issues with apps and other stupid crap, they aren't going to win anytime soon.

If any other reason exists why the ipad is a success, it is because it sheds so much crap from the experience that normal PCs, aka, reinstalling the OS, installing programs, stupid issues with Windows, the Vista debacle, XP pre SP2, POS computers that break in 2 years from emachines, etc.


RE: Makes me laugh
By Cerin218 on 12/5/2011 1:40:02 AM , Rating: 1
So what you are really saying is that all patents do is prevent your ideas from being improved upon by others, which may lead to even better ideas..


RE: Makes me laugh
By bntran02 on 12/6/2011 3:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
YES if you are suing someone for using widely accepted ideas and models (Rectangular shape, minimalist design, black face etc...).


RE: Makes me laugh
By Paj on 12/5/2011 7:03:15 AM , Rating: 4
http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digi...

Samsung Digital picture frame. Can you guess the year?

Hint: it's before the iphone, and way before the ipad.


RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me laugh
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By Dorkyman on 12/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me laugh
By retrospooty on 12/4/2011 10:40:01 AM , Rating: 5
"by the way, you wouldn't even know what a modern multi-touch smartphone is, without Apple CREATING THE CATEGORY.... nor would you know what a modern Tablet is, without Apple CREATING the category.... nor would you know what a PC is... without Apple CREATING the category... nor would you know what downloadable Music legally was, without Apple CREATING the category.....

what is particularly laughable... is that you would never see a Tablet from Samsung in that form factor, or use of multi-touch... if the iPad had never existed... yet you just assumed Samsung came out with it on their own... that is what is particularly laughable..."


What is laughable is your blindly agreeing with everything Apple without really knowing anything. It just makes you look blind.

1. Apple didnt invent the personal computer
2. Music was downloadable before Apple got into the game.
3. You would never have seen an iPhone if not for Apple copying the whole concept from Palm/Handspring.

The entire industry builds off ideas of others. It always has, as all industries always has. Its as if to say, Toyota, GM, BMW and Honda shouldnt be allowed to make cars because they all copy Ford. pfapf.

Apple suing for these vague concepts is just hypocritical and small. All they were is first to market with a multitouch UI. Now, that was a great thing, now let the competition begin. They "borrowed" the whole mobile phone idea, as well as putting and OS and apps on a phone. So why is that not frowned upon, but borrowing far more vague software concepts is? Because you arent here to actually debate the realities of the situation, you are here to defend Apple at all costs arent you?


RE: Makes me laugh
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me laugh
By sprockkets on 12/4/2011 8:08:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Except before Apple PCs were sht


Right, and MacOS up to 10.1 wasn't.

quote:
mp3 players were sht


Why? And didn't it take 3 revisions of the lousy ipod just to make it even accessible to the rest of the world with usb ports and windows?

quote:
so called smart phones and PDAs were sht


Only if you live in a hole and didn't know what the rest of the world enjoyed. And judging by the Prada which was one step away from a multi-touch UI, it was just a short matter of time before someone else came up with it.


RE: Makes me laugh
By DeluxeTea on 12/4/2011 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except before Apple PCs were shit, mp3 players were shit and so called smart phones and PDAs were shit.


And Apple started selling overpriced, underpowered yet polished shit. Still shit though.


RE: Makes me laugh
By retrospooty on 12/4/2011 9:51:24 PM , Rating: 5
I fail to see what your post has to do with
anything. it's 100 percent opinion. and in my opinion false. anyhow the subject matter was 1 company copying another. a subject in which apple is as guilty if not even more guilty than most other companies.


RE: Makes me laugh
By powerwerds on 12/4/2011 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
by the way, you wouldn't even know what a modern multi-touch smartphone is, without Apple CREATING THE CATEGORY.... nor would you know what a modern Tablet is, without Apple CREATING the category.... nor would you know what a PC is... without Apple CREATING the category... nor would you know what downloadable Music legally was, without Apple CREATING the category.....


By the way...

I happen to think you are displaying some pretty serious issues in logic, the likes of which can usually be found co-existent with another type of illness called fanboyism . In your particular case, your blind love of Apple's particular iterations of consumer electronics has retrogressively allowed you to now believe that Apple as a company happens to be the lone progenator of those entire "categories".

See, phone is a category. A "modern multi-touch smartphone" is a type of phone. A type, also, that imho Apple did not create.

I would say computer is a category, and "modern Tablet" and "PC" are types of computers. Both of which, I would also have to humbly allege, in my own opinion, that Apple didn't create those types.

Lastly, with music as a category, and "downloadable Music legally" as a type, I will have to most assuredly state that Apple did not create legally downloadable music.

In review, did Apple create great products for all the different types mentioned? Yes, this can possibly be argued. Did Apple create all of the types such that without Apples inventiveness those types would not now exist? No, not at all, that is simply not true, and its here that your fanboyism fails you. With the ecstatic nature of your assertions it almost comes across as if you quite believe the Apple invented the phone, the computer, and music too.

Anyway, just sayin, you are what I find "particularly laughable".


RE: Makes me laugh
By Da W on 12/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me laugh
By cbf on 12/5/2011 2:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
So Apple should be able to patent the idea of removing the keyboard from Alan Kay's Dyanabook (from 1968)?

http://afflictor.com/2011/02/24/alan-kay-designed-...

Furthermore, Apple didn't even invent the on-screen keyboard. Although I think originally Palm Pilots may only have had hand-writing input, early Windows CE devices (mid 1990s) offered a on-screen keyboard alternative (e.g. original Compaq iPaq).

At best, Apple's patents are "combination" patents. I.e. they patent a particularly good combination of various existing technologies. Such combination patents have not stood up well in recent US court rulings (see KSR vs. Teleflex - http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/patent/patent-typ... which is as I think it should be, since most of these patents are about things "too obvious to publish" (to borrow Richard Stallman's phrase from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/lpf/Paten... and other papers).


RE: Makes me laugh
By Da W on 12/5/2011 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
How about Google's "open source" product slowly becoming private? Ain't that worst?


Similar
By jdubs860 on 12/3/2011 7:37:15 PM , Rating: 5
The root of the problem is apple's business model. They spend all their R&D on creating some great software and then what do they try to sell? hardware. The driving force behind anything apple makes is the intuitive and innovative software they are able to create. Somewhere along the line short sighted apple execs decide its a good idea to tie that great software to one specific piece of hardware only, instead of licensing it out. If apple had been licensing iOS to all these manufacturers they are now trying to sue their would be no android. It wouldn't have been needed. They would be DOMINATING both the smart phone and tablet market and still could have produced the iPhone, as I'm sure it would have been selling just as well as it is today because its a good phone. Apple would have done well to learn from their past failures in the personal computer business. They had the same nearsightedness with a great product then microsoft came along and they ended up bankrupt. If they would drop their desire to be so proprietary and in control they wouldn't be in this position. I hope now that jobs has passed (RIP) they are able to shift to a business model that provides long term success as well as in the short term because clearly all they have learned in the past 20 or 30 years is to patent everything and sue. Next time you come out with a groundbreaking product apple, please think outside of the hardware box.




RE: Similar
By V-Money on 12/3/2011 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 3
Except for the fact that its their closed system model that allows their software to work so well. Its easy to design an OS that works on one set of hardware that's only updated ~6months, as opposed to a wide variety of hardware updated ~ever couple of weeks. Also, the other reason they are so successful is because of the apple "design". People see it as being something that's special and if every device ran iOS, iPhone users couldn't show their trademark apple device with a giant fruit on it and talk about how special they are. For the record, even if iOS were available on my phone I would still use android.


RE: Similar
By superPC on 12/3/2011 9:23:30 PM , Rating: 3
It goes deeper that that i'm afraid. apple doesn't have the expertise, engineering prowess, manpower or willingness to developed an OS that can be guarantied to work on a wide variety of hardware. It's just easier to build an OS that works really well on some specific hardware. besides it contradict their own doctrine of tight focus in hardware or software design. in other words: it would become more like microsoft and not as successful.


RE: Similar
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Similar
By twhittet on 12/5/2011 1:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I really hope Apple pays you for your time wasted on here blindly defending and hyping them.

Go talk to a girl. Watch a football game. Hug your kids. Play fetch with your dog. Seriously, get a life.


RE: Similar
By Tony Swash on 12/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Similar
By honkj on 12/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: Similar
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Similar
By nocturne_81 on 12/4/2011 12:06:41 PM , Rating: 3
It seems you're too young to remember all the lawsuits Apple started throughout the 80s and 90s -- hell, they even sued the Beatles in order to get into the music business to begin with (Apple is the name of the Beatles' production company).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

Actually, many of these previous lawsuits have directly led to the many problems we still face today regarding litigiousness and patent fraud in the tech world -- the ability to patent an idea without having exercised nor created it; as well the ability to patent a result instead of the process used to get there (source vs object code).


RE: Similar
By Estienne Taylor on 12/4/2011 8:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't capable of doing what Microsoft has done for the past 30 years. Look at Google trying to emulate Microsoft and look at the mess they created along the way.


RE: Similar
By joos2000 on 12/4/2011 8:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
Um, Apple already tried the licensing method in the nineties and all it created was cannibalisation on their own hardware sales.

Sure, they earned a 100 dollar license fee for every mac clone sold but they also lost 500 dollars in hardware sales for every clone sold rather than a mac.

There is apple's lesson learnt and I'm pretty sure they will never, ever do that mistake again.

There will only be place for one open software platform at the time in the modern growth focused economy. On the PC, there is MS with Windows. On the handhelds, there is Google with Android.

Everyone else will fail.


RE: Similar
By Motoman on 12/4/2011 9:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um, Apple already tried the licensing method in the nineties and all it created was cannibalisation on their own hardware sales.


No, all it did was prove that their computers are ridiculously overpriced, and they didn't want to have to compete in a normal market.

quote:
Sure, they earned a 100 dollar license fee for every mac clone sold but they also lost 500 dollars in hardware sales for every clone sold rather than a mac.


...and every clone was sold at a profit that those manufacturers were comfortable with...Apple simply learned that an open market means you have to sell your product for a reasonable price. Not a ridiculously inflated one.

quote:
There will only be place for one open software platform at the time in the modern growth focused economy. On the PC, there is MS with Windows. On the handhelds, there is Google with Android.


...what? Apple *could* have made a serious dent in the market with an open strategy. Instead, they have ~5% of the market, which statistically speaking is irrelevant. Don't invent a moronic excuse like that which has no grounding in reality.

Selling it's OS openly for others to use to make their own computers simply demonstrated to the market how wildly inflated Apple prices are...but it also would have allowed Apple to gain significant marketshare. In the end, the decision to not sell the OS openly has cost Apple untold mountains of money, dessicated it's ecosystem, and all but killed off it's tiny, insignificant marketshare.


RE: Similar
By TakinYourPoints on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Similar
By Helbore on 12/5/2011 5:56:30 AM , Rating: 5
There is a flaw with low volume-high profit margin strategies. Whilst they allow for large increases in profit from small increases in market share, they also result in large decreases in profit from small decreases in market share. This is less of a risk in the "large market share - small profit margin" model.

Further, Apple's strategy is heavily based on image. Design and style have always been key to their sales. But the problem with "the cool factor" is it is reliant on an inherently fickle market. What was "cool" previously is "so last year" today. IT is even more significant when comparing across the generations (kids don't find something cool if their parents like it).

These factors mean that Apple is always standing on that precipice of "losing its cool." It has to maintain that image constantly, as one generational failure would spell doom for them. All we need is for - say - the iPhone 5 to not be a success and it would be nearly impossible to recover from the loss of momentum.

One of the biggest killers of companies is sudden growth and expansion, followed by an inability to maintain profit margins. With a large market share, you can absorb minor fluctuations. But when you have a large profit margin, minor fluctuations drastically affect your bottom line. That, in turn, results in you not being able to support the company's increase size, so you are forced into lay-off and other downsizing exercises. Then your stock price decreases. Then you lose your ability to develop a competitive next-gen product, as you are now much smaller than your competitors. Then you lose more market share, forcing you to downsize again. Your investors lose confidence, stock prices crash and someone bigger buys you out.

It's happened to many companies in the past. It nearly happened to Apple in the past. They're using the same business model now that they did then. The current situation is eerily familiar to Microsoft vs. Apple in the 80s. Apple failed to successfully sue MS for "slavishly copying" their look and feel of MacOS. MS became the dominant player in the PC market. Apple nearly died in the 90s.

If history repeats itself (Apple loses its court cases against Android. Google eats up their market share as a result), then Apple could be back on the brink in ten years. This coming decade could be Apple's "next 90s."

And they won't be able to beg Steve Jobs to come back and sort out the mess again this time.


RE: Similar
By joos2000 on 12/5/2011 4:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a flaw with low volume-high profit margin strategies. Whilst they allow for large increases in profit from small increases in market share, they also result in large decreases in profit from small decreases in market share. This is less of a risk in the "large market share - small profit margin" model.


Well, to draw parallels to the Auto industry which is not too dissimilar in how it works, you are wrong. In the GFC, it was the low margin, high volume manufacturers that suffered the most. The reason for this is, that to manufacture huge volumes, you need to tie up huge amounts of capital in equipment, land, employees, etc. Sp, GM and Toyota were some of the hardest hit while high profit, low to mid volume manufacturers such as Porsche and BMW was doing Ok.

This is also the main reason why the new Apple is a lot less sensitive to market fluctuations than the old apple.

The old apple owned its own factories and assembly lines and where, as you say, very sensitive to market fluctuations.

The new apple, which has outsourced its manufacturing is a lot more robust. With one of the most efficient JIT processes in manufacturing, they only carry two days of stock which hugely reduces tied up capital and makes the organisation able to quickly adapt to market volumes.

So, if a product flops, it can redirect its focus to quickly change what isn't working, overcome a problem and adjust a lot faster than the old company could, that relies heavily on warehouses. This is shown how quickly 'Antenna-gate' or whatever you call it was resolved even though it required re design of the main frame of the iPhone. This would also work in its advantage if a design flops.

So, I reckon apple is far more robust to market fluctuations than Samsung or LG for example.


RE: Similar
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 7:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not only does Apple keep short inventory, they make so much more product than everyone else that they get better bulk prices on components. They also lay down cash for years beforehand, further reducing their component costs because they have a guarantee. In the case of larger high quality displays it is also how they corner the market on them. It is how they manage to sell superior hardware while maintaining excellent (for hardware) profit margins.

You're correct, their supply chain is a huge reason why they are as profitable as they are while having quality advantages that others can't match unless they increase their own prices, or reduce their own profit margins by eating into their price.


RE: Similar
By Helbore on 12/6/2011 8:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
The difference to the auto industry is that competing platforms aren't being sold by a single high-volume manufacturer. It is software platforms (easy to mass produce) being sold to lots of hardware manufacturers. A cross-platform OS can survive even the death of an entire OEM. A single-platform OS cannot.

Also, unlike the low share-high margin auto manufacturers, Apple isn't near-exclusively selling to rich people.

Apple's problem is they don't produce a large product line. What would they do if the iPhone 5 wasn't the "must-have" device of next year and instead an android handset took the crown? What if they failed to recover their "must-have" image after that - as once it goes, it can be hard to retrieve?

They cannot rely on the Mac line to keep the company afloat at its current size. They would be forced to scale back. That is where they would be at risk.

Of course, it's a non-issue if they can maintain/grow market share.


RE: Similar
By TakinYourPoints on 12/5/2011 7:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like wishful thinking on your part. Your argument is assuming that litigation is the only thing keeping Apple afloat, when quality is really why they continue to sell so well.

Fact of the matter is that these devices all cost about the same, with the difference being that iOS runs on the fastest hardware and has the the best developer support and application ecosystem. It isn't about being "cool", the iPhone and iPad are objectively superior platforms, and in the case of the iPhone it is one in which the carriers and not the customer shoulder the price of the hardware. There is certainly room for multiple ecosystems, but to say that Android will be the single platform out there is asinine, not to mention scary as it really is trash compared to iOS or WP7.

We'll see what happens, but Apple is in such a strong position with their hardware and app ecosystem, all while providing a better value than other high end competing handsets. With Android you can pay as much as or more than an iPhone but you get slower hardware, a sluggish UI, and fewer apps/weaker developer support. You aren't even guaranteed OS updates even with the "reference" Nexus line.

Anyway, Apple has enough cash on hand to shrug off whatever missteps may happen. Hell, they showed significant growth during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, I think they'll be fine.


RE: Similar
By Helbore on 12/6/2011 7:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
This is pretty much what was said about Apple in the 80s, too. They were "objectively better." There was no way an "inferior platform" would end up dominating the market.

Look what happened, though.

BTW, why do you think it sounds like wishful thinking? Do you think I want Apple to go bankrupt, because I don't. Competition is good for the market, so I'd rather see many competing companies, than a single monopoly dominating everything.


RE: Similar
By joos2000 on 12/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: Similar
By Alexstarfire on 12/5/2011 2:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Every single person in the US, even the homeless/jobless/broke/bankrupt, has more money than the US government so that's not exactly saying much.


RE: Similar
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2011 8:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes except poor people can't print up their own money, the U.S Government can :(


RE: Similar
By someguy123 on 12/4/2011 9:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it's a flawed "business model". it works out very well. The only problem was their advertising. Nowadays they've created a sort of religion around their products.

I guess it's flawed in terms of openness and universal penetration, but when it comes to business it works perfectly well at milking their customers for everything they're worth.


Every time...
By Performance Fanboi on 12/3/2011 6:59:56 PM , Rating: 5
someone buys an Apple product they support this behavior and increase prices for everyone else. The lawyers are happy though.




RE: Every time...
By TSS on 12/3/2011 8:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just really glad corperations can't own their own private armies. What a world this would be if they'd fight these things out in the streets instead of in the courts.

This thing has come as close to a legal world war as can get without everybody sueing everybody for everything ever made.


RE: Every time...
By MonkeyPaw on 12/3/2011 8:32:36 PM , Rating: 5
Lawyers might be worse than armies.


RE: Every time...
By Richlet on 12/3/2011 9:45:40 PM , Rating: 5
If there was an army that would lead to the end of this bull**it I'd join it in a heartbeat. And I'd ask for sniper lessons to have had the chance to kill a complete hypocrite like Steve "the new Jesus" Jobs. Thankfully he's already dead, so that's not a death threat.


RE: Every time...
By dtm4trix on 12/4/2011 2:14:38 AM , Rating: 3
In Soviet Russia army sues you!!


RE: Every time...
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Every time...
By drycrust3 on 12/4/2011 2:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
But neither IBM nor Nokia had much to loose by signing did they! IBM don't make tablets, and Nokia are using WP7, so they wouldn't pay Apple anything anyway.


RE: Every time...
By Motoman on 12/4/2011 9:25:12 AM , Rating: 4
I've been saying that for years. As we watch all the various abuses of the consumer, market, and even employees at the hands of Apple, all the mouth-breathing dipsh1ts of this world continue to blithely buy their products.

Stop.


Moving the goal posts.
By drycrust3 on 12/4/2011 12:45:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"[Samsung] blatant copying (Apple) is wrong."


This is an interesting comment, not because of the accusation, but because the words used have meanings which match what most of us understand them to mean. However, if we go to the patent 7,469,381, we find statements like "translating the electronic document", where the meaning doesn't mean what we expect it to mean. Believe it or not, this isn't about translating an electronic document from one language to another, e.g. from Spanish into English, which is what one would expect when one sees the word "translate", nor is it about translating a document from one format to another (e.g. from Microsoft Word format to PDF), but it is just the moving of a "page" of an electronic document around on the computer screen.
Another example is the famous "gesture", which isn't about a non-physically contacting hand signal meant to convey information, but the brushing of one's finger across a touch sensitive display.
These aren't isolated cases either. If we look at the patent above, we see page after page filled with careful phrasing that is hard to understand.
Where words or phrases are used which have some special meaning that is different from what one normally expects or understands them to be (both in general and within that industry), then one would expect such a list to either be near the start of the patent or at the end, but I haven't seen any in any of the patents I've looked at.
The problem, then, is that when someone reads a patent with page after page of words and phrases with intentionally blurred and indistinct meaning (and moreso when the patent is then translated into another language, e.g. German), then no one can be sure of whether someone is infringing upon a patent or not unless the writer of the patent says so, which is a ludicrous state of affairs.
Imagine the situation where someone, e.g. Apple, could just say someone else, e.g. Samsung, was infringing upon their patents just because, and the latter would find it very difficult to disprove the charge because no one, except the patent applicant, in this case Apple, understands what is said in the patent. How is Samsung supposed to avoid a patent that no one understands?
To make matters worse, since the applicant is the only one who understands what is written, they can easily change their way of interpreting the meaning of the patent and it is very difficult to prove this because only they understand what it means. For example, we find that part of Apple's application for banning the sale of Samsung tablets involved their use of "menu animation", yet the words "menu animation" don't appear in the patent at all, only the word "animation" is mentioned once, in a context unrelated specifically to menus, so how was Samsung supposed to avoid infringing upon an invention where only half of its name is mentioned in the patent covering it?




RE: Moving the goal posts.
By honkj on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Moving the goal posts.
By honkj on 12/4/2011 1:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
two patents on tech, and one design patent..


that should say: "two patents, one tech, and one design patent..."

also
quote:
it is because everyone, including the judge knows Apple blatantly stole Apple design and tech.... EVERYONE including the JUDGE mind you...


sould be: it is because everyone, including the judge knows Samsung blatantly stole Apple design and tech.... EVERYONE including the JUDGE mind you... (and she has said as much)


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By Helbore on 12/5/2011 6:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a challenge for you. Go stand in an electronics store and look at some TVs from a distance where you can't read the manufacturer's branding on them. Can you identify the difference? Do you know which is the Sony TV and which is the Samsung? Can you pick out the LG unit from Panasonic?

In some cases you might (a Samsung D8000 has a ridiculously think silver bezel, for example), but in most cases they will all look identical. A rectangular screen with a black bezel.

Should the first company to make an LCD TV with a black bezel be able to sue everyone else because they also have a TV with a black bezel? How about the form-factor? The fist company was the first to produce an LCD TV with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Should everyone else make triangular TVs to avoid infringing on their patent? Or is the patent ridiculous and clearly just intended to try and create a monopoly for company 1?


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By Wondering Fool on 12/4/2011 2:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad.


...And this is why those very patents are being challenged in court. That description covers EVERY variation that you can think of. Not to mention that no ONE company can claim to have solely invented that design. Just think what the auto industry would be like today if Ford had a patent on (manually controlled, able to hold people, rectangular) machines.


RE: Moving the goal posts.
RE: Moving the goal posts.
By seamonkey79 on 12/4/2011 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_p...

Think of how stunted and limited both automobiles and airplanes (aeroplanes for non-US persons) would be if companies like Ford and Curtis and Lockheed and Boeing, et al, had been disallowed from production because a couple of people (literally five for automobiles and two for airplanes) decided that because they used an engine that ran on gasoline vapor or a wire to tug on a control surface, even though developed simply and separately from the patented tech, the fact that the end result was the same meant they were infringing...


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By seamonkey79 on 12/4/2011 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, forgot the part about Curtiss and other air companies coming up with a manner of roll control that effected the same results as the Wright's, but in an completely different manner. The Wright's patent was on warping the shape of the wing, and Curtiss and others developed the ailerons that we still use today. Same result, different method. It gets even better when you look into the more recent history and see that multi-touch is 25 years or so old, icon based interfaces are 20+ years old, LCDs have been wrapped in a thin, black (or otherwise) border for 15+ years... the only thing I've seen that started on an Apple device is the bounceback when scrolling around, so if Android manufacturers have to remove that, so be it... I've always done what I can to turn it off anyway because it bugs me.


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By drycrust3 on 12/4/2011 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And this is why those very patents are being challenged in court.

The grounds for the injunction were that the Galaxy infringed on Apple's patented "menu animation", but those exact words never ever appear in the sited patent. Go and read it yourself!
So where does the idea of "menu animation" come from?
This is the nearest I can find:
quote:
Bookmarks icon 3918 that when activated (e.g., by a finger tap on the icon) initiates display of a bookmarks list or menu for the browser;

So here, after the user taps on the menu or icon, a list appears. Personally, I don't think you can classify that as "unique and original". To me, this isn't even "menu animation", it's just a fancy term for a pop up or drop down menu, which were around long before this 2008 patent. So it's as I said, Apple can suddenly interpret this patent to mean pretty well anything they like because it's so difficult to know exactly what actually is the "orginal and unique" development they are trying to protect. Why would you want to hide a unique and original technological breakthrough? Wouldn't you want it in plain sight so everyone knows you discovered it?


RE: Moving the goal posts.
By DeluxeTea on 12/4/2011 9:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would you want to hide a unique and original technological breakthrough? Wouldn't you want it in plain sight so everyone knows you discovered it?


Only reason I can think of is to wait until someone else comes up with something similar, then slam a lawsuit on their face. Pretty much what Apple is doing today. Even worse, that patented idea isn't even "unique and original", just some vague yet fancy wording on an existing technology.


Suck it...
By gwem557 on 12/3/2011 7:12:44 PM , Rating: 5
...Tony Swashtika.




RE: Suck it...
By Tony Swash on 12/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: Suck it...
By Motoman on 12/4/2011 10:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
...as is the Streisand Effect.


RE: Suck it...
By harshbarj on 12/4/2011 9:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
Now if this dose not get a 6, what ever could!

6 it!


Goes to show...
By dgingerich on 12/4/2011 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
This goes to show us how Germany's judges are for sale far easier than US judges.




RE: Goes to show...
By CBeck113 on 12/4/2011 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, it only shows how good Apple's lawyers really are. They are the ones protecting Apple's future income, instead of its engineers - their work has been completed, and they don't make any groundbreaking advances on their products during their life cycles. Or is Siri something amazing? Nope, the technological advances are more for cost savings than anything else, but the newer tech bits need the right software to run, so they're forced to update.
My point is that Apple "develops" a product (which they have seen before), then let their lawyers insure its success over the following years, which the engineering teams handle cost reductions and product problems.
Servus, Charlie


RE: Goes to show...
By Helbore on 12/5/2011 6:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
NO, it just goes to show that the EU is strapped for cash.

Grant Apple injunction, wait for Apple to become a monopoly, fine Apple millions for being anti-competitive, EU judges buy new villa in south of Spain.


there should be...
By moriz on 12/4/2011 11:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
...a new rule in the tech industry, along with google's "don't be evil". it should be "don't be an asshole". apple's violating that rule over and over again with their frivolous litigations.

heck, if they are as innovative as they claim to be (instead of nicely packaging features that other devices had already), then they should keep innovating and let others continuously play catchup. instead, they are sitting stagnant while forcing other companies to innovate past their legal landmines.




RE: there should be...
By spaced_ on 12/5/2011 3:48:10 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe the google motto still applies in this case?

Gouging consumers, looking to exploit the legal system to maintain a monopoly. Sounds fairly evil to me, but I guess good & evil are quite relative terms.


This is scary....
By cscpianoman on 12/3/2011 7:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung yielded to the German Judge's ruling, redesigning its product to have a different frame and reposition its elements such as the speaker and buttons. Apple however has filed a second suit against the new design, which should soon go on sale. It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern tablet (primarily touch driven, thin, rectangular), regardless of whether the modern tablet looks different from the iPad. The German justice system has not yet decided whether or not to authorize Apple's request for a new preliminary injunction.

Why does this seem like one of the scariest statements on the planet.




RE: This is scary....
By spaced_ on 12/5/2011 3:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Let me rewrite the quoted paragraph a little...

quote:
Toyota yielded to the German Judge's ruling, redesigning its car to have a different shape and reposition its elements such as the wheels and doors. Apple however has filed a second suit against the new design, which should soon go to market. It reasserts that it should be the only company legally allowed to make a modern car (primarily elongated, shiny, car-shaped), regardless of whether the modern car looks different from the Apple iCar. The German justice system has not yet decided whether or not to authorize Apple's request for a new preliminary injunction.


Madness
By Estienne Taylor on 12/4/2011 8:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
Someone should give Apple a taste of their own medicine cause this is getting out of control.




RE: Madness
By joos2000 on 12/4/2011 8:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
All 'Someone' needs to do, is to invent a technology that is so unique and clever that the public realises it can't live without. Then, 'Someone' just has to wait for Apple to steal the tech (ie not license or buy the tech as they usually do) and then sue them for it.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.


The way the world really works
By vailr on 12/4/2011 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Apple's board of directors need wake up and recognize the way the world really works.
Does the U.S. President sue every foreign country because people elsewhere are born with 2 eyes, 2 arms and 2 legs, the same quantities as most Americans have?
No.
Did Ford sue Toyota (back in the 1920's) when they produced an automobile in Japan that looked similar to Ford's Model A?
No.
So: neither should Apple be wasting judicial court's time litigating against Samsung and their Android software.
Note: IF Apple were to switch their product manufacturing (components AND final assembly) location from China/Taiwan/Japan to U.S. soil, then I might adjust my opinion somewhat. Not very likely, however.




RE: The way the world really works
By Dradien on 12/4/2011 10:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Just a nitpick, but Toyota didn't come around until 1937:P. I get your point though.


WOW
By atlmann10 on 12/5/2011 10:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
I may be mistaken here but I seem to remember a huge Apple fanboy named perkz who now seemingly is posting to XDA and is now an Android fanboy (WOW) the wonders never cease to exist




RE: WOW
By ProZach on 12/7/2011 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
That guy was annoying, hope he stays there whenever his hemor-droids flare up that he has to post fanatical troll spew.

Good riddance to both him and Sillidon Coc.


I'll just post these here.
By Omega215D on 12/4/2011 11:05:27 PM , Rating: 3
HTC TouchFlo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ8TQ9Rr_7E

Pierre Wellner's Digital Desk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g

Ideas of designs from the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_TX

(note black rectangle with a centered button, something done by Palm and many others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Compaq_TC1100

http://www.zdnet.com/photos/apple-ipad-design-its-...

(Roddenberry probably would have disapproved of Apple's tactics of tech advancements)

Commentary from a Ziff Davis site:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apples-world...

This is to show that what we have now is a natural progression of things and that it was due to Intel (xscale), VIA/ S3, ARM and Samsung (all their wide scale manufacturing of silicon base products and LCDs) that we're getting to the point of massive processing power in a diminutive package. That's not even including the long development of cellular technology.

Also, Wozniak is greater than Steve Jobs.




No More Bounce. Sorry Apple
By mm2587 on 12/6/2011 9:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
Just recieved an OTA update for my samsung charge over the weekend. The bounce animation is gone. Instead I get a soft yellow glow when I hit bottom and it slowly fades away. Just as intuitive from my perspective.

Looks like apple is running out of ammo.




RE: No More Bounce. Sorry Apple
By ZZm12 on 12/7/2011 11:10:56 AM , Rating: 1
"Good news", said my street neighbor today, "Finally we are getting somewhere with this Android crap". A man who is refusing to use an iPad and hates Android....but loves to sell them.

Exactly a year ago he was very upbeat, even after wrecking my older Porsche, saying: "Don't worry, next year I can buy you a 'new' one". You see, the guy is an export agent for tablets and some other electronics and accessories. He's told me many times that tablets are crap, but there are enough dumb people out there to make him a multi millionaire. He has tried out hundreds of prototypes here in HK/Shenzhen/Dongguan area (there are many that are meant only for the Chinese market). "The freaking iPad set the bar too high, people are seeing how the other tablets have problems. Retailers can still sell the same guy an 'improved' version of the same shit with hype, but in general it's not working, there needs to be some good news. I thought that fragmentation would be a blessing, not so, open source...even worse, too insecure already in this state of the game. Man, this is killing me, I want sell sell sell".

There you go, now it's your turn to buy buy buy, remember, all that goes to a good cause, to get me another Porsche Boxter.


Fandroids - face the truth
By hexxthalion on 12/12/2011 1:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sick and tired of all this BS. Fandroids - pull your heads out of your bottoms, research history of computing/mobile a bit and then come back with your shitty comments.




RE: Fandroids - face the truth
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/14/2011 9:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should do the same...


Go Away
By dsquare86 on 12/3/2011 9:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is just a bunch of sore losers in all of this. Not everything that is created by Apple is the best or the end all, be all thing like many of the kool aid drinkers think.




Apple's next target.
By Aloonatic on 12/4/2011 6:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
The makers of this system are sure to be Apple's next victims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15923438

Due to the patent that Apple seem to have for taking the piss* :o)

*http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tak...




Apple DOES innovate...
By ProZach on 12/5/2011 2:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
...they re-invented the a-hole just to poke at their competitor's rears with their litigious A-pole.

P.S. A little late to share, but if you like AdBlock and also like to keep your food down (like me) here's a holiday bonus. Add filter: http://images.dailytech.com/*/*jobs*




It was only a matter of time
By masamasa on 12/5/2011 11:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
Apple should spend their time and efforts focusing on innovation and not on trying to sue competitors out of the market. These patents are a joke and should never have been granted. Personally, I have zero respect for companies that abuse competition and consumers.

Regards,

Captain James T. Kirk
"It was my idea first!"




Windows 8
By btc909 on 12/5/2011 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Good luck suing Microsoft Crapple. Windows 8 tablets will seriously eat into your sales Crapple.




By knightspawn1138 on 12/5/2011 2:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just going to say it. Apple stole the iPad from Star Trek TNG. At least half of us nerds have one, so pull out the TNG Technical manual, and look up the PADD. They had iPADS in 1987! And those designs were color touch-screens from an era where the real world was amazed by the PALM PDA. iPads are just an extension and refinement of the venerable PDA. So are all of our smartphones. Jobs even tried too early to make a PDA (Remember the Newton?), but just couldn't get it right. The truth is, just about every modern gadget can be traced back to some earlier iteration. Apple just seems to get bent out of shape more than most companies. I don't see Apple suing Samsung over their Series 9 Laptops (about the closest clone to a Macbook Air that I've ever seen).

If Magellan (the explorer) were like Apple, then as soon as news of the world being round came out, every nation and person who accepted this information would be sued for now thinking differently (pun intended).




Silly Apple
By VinnyRandy on 12/6/2011 4:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
What if Ford claims all other car manufacturers stole Ford's idea of cars? So other companies need to make the square tires?
Those Apple's patents are just common sense. Maybe Trojan condom should sue other condom manufacturers so other manufactures need to make square condoms.




By Stephen! on 12/9/2011 5:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."


Maybe he was just mentally unstable.




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki