backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on May 29 at 3:08 AM


  (Source: Trolls News)
Unable to compete, the Cupertino company claims that Google and Samsung stole features from Siri

Given that the massive Galaxy S IV doesn't look too much like the much smaller 4-inch iPhone 5, Apple Inc. (AAPL) is having to turn to new and creative routes to try to convince federal judges and juries to ban its competitor’s flagship product.

I. Apple Targets Samsung Again

Samsung is doing quite well with the Galaxy S IV, moving 10 million units in a mere four weeks.  Overall Samsung is outselling Apple 2-to-1 in unit sales.  In addition, Samsung is approaching Apple in profitability for the first time; while Apple has seen its own profit margins slide for the first time in years.

Thus it is perhaps expected that Apple would be return to its favorite tactic -- looking to troll Samsung in court.

Galaxy S IV
The Samsung Galaxy S IV

Its latest accusation is that Google Inc.’s (GOOG) Android "Google Now" service violates five invention claims that Apple has patented, with respect to its Siri voice search/assistant that it co-designed with Nuance Communications Inc. (NUAN).

The patents asserted are:

13-05-21 Apple Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions



But wait, you say, what could patents filed at least four years before Siri was released (or ten or more years in most cases) have to do with Siri or Google Now?  And what in the world do graphical user interface patents (the latter two patents from the 90s) have to do with voice search?

II. Apple Looks to Use Ambiguous Decade-Old Patents Against Samsung

Apple contends that the trio of initial patents -- which cover interaction with ambiguous data constructs -- can be applied to Siri, Google Now, (or likely most other pieces of software).  And Apple says its equally ambiguous UI "inventions" are fair game, as Google Now is activated by an on-screen button at times, replacing the previous "Android Quick Search Box".

According to a filing obtained by Florian Mueller, an anti-Google blogger paid by Google's legal rivals, Apple writes, "The Galaxy S4 product practices many of the same claims already asserted by Apple… in the same way as the already-accused Samsung devices."
 

Unable to compete, Apple is helping the courts lend it a helping hand in its war against Samsung. [Image Source: Cult of Mac]
 
Judge Paul S. Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will rule on Apple's request to tack on the patents at a June 25 hearing.  

As Samsung and Apple wind up to a second trial, in which Apple is targeting dozens of Samsung smartphones and tablets for bans, the Cupertino company is watching its first $1.05B USD court win over Samsung start to unravel with a pair of patent invalidations by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Apple also failed to secure any lasting bans on current Samsung products in that case.

Sources: AppleInsider, Scribd



Comments     Threshold


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

Typical Apple strategy
By BurnItDwn on 5/22/2013 3:20:11 PM , Rating: 5
I believe Apple's strategy involves
1.) Always be bad for consumers (don't use industry standard connectors and such, make it hard to fix or replace parts)
2.) Do not ever compete on a level playing field

That has worked for apple for quite few years, however, they are less fashionable as of late, and since they have only succeeded by being fashionable, this means their downfall and inevitable doom.




RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Nortel on 5/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By xti on 5/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Nortel on 5/22/2013 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the same way with cables. When I buy a TV, I'm not complaining that it didn't come with a HDMI cable. When you buy a Mac, you wont necessarily require a Thunderbolt cable and if you do, just buy one.

As for batteries, I have a battery case for my iPhone 5 which I slip on if I'm running low but I'm sure I could just charge the phone at work. It's helped me out on a few occasions though.

Screen size is all relative and subject to opinion. If Apple offered the iPad Mini with full cellphone capabilities, people would be up in arms with it being 'too big to be a phone'. The Note 2 is pretty large and lots love it but some people think the iPhone 5 is too big. To each their own.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Mitch101 on 5/23/2013 10:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Guess its time to play chopsticks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JMcy5OqZA


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By retrospooty on 5/23/2013 10:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL... Awesome ad.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By DT_Reader on 5/23/2013 1:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
The difference is that if you need an HDMI cable for your TV you can get one anywhere, even the supermarket. If you need a Thunderbolt cable there's only one place to get it, and you'll pay 2-3 times what it's worth as a result of that exclusivity.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By xti on 5/23/2013 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
uh...you know you can get thunderbolt and pretty much any cable cheap and decent quality at monoprice.com right?


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By amanojaku on 5/22/2013 4:01:49 PM , Rating: 5
Prior to Lightning, Apple used that weird 30-pin connector on its phones and tablets. And FireWire, while not exclusive to Macs, never made a dent in a market that was already using USB. Most people don't understand Apple's reluctance to enhance currently used technology like everyone else does. My new PC has USB 3 ports, which accept my USB 1 and 2 devices, no problem. It also has SATA 3, which accept SATA 1 and 2. Apple doesn't believe in backwards compatibility, even with its own technology.

As to user replaceable hardware, Apple was among the first companies to start the trend of being unable to do your own upgrades or repairs. That goes against the ideology of technology: if you're capable, you should be able to do it yourself. Which is why so many do-it-yourselfers don't buy Apple products.

As to that trade off, that's BS. Other companies have no problem creating removable batteries in thin phones. Look at Samsung's Galaxy S4.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Shadowself on 5/22/2013 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And FireWire, while not exclusive to Macs, never made a dent in a market that was already using USB.
This was due to Apple's initial licensing policy. It was (IIRC) a minimum of $5,000 for a base license plus $1.00 for each connector. This meant that if you wanted to build a Firewire cable you had to pay Apple $2.00 (two connectors on the cable) plus the initial fee. Back in 1990 when Firewire started that was a truly asinine fee -- and still would be today!

quote:
Most people don't understand Apple's reluctance to enhance currently used technology like everyone else does. My new PC has USB 3 ports, which accept my USB 1 and 2 devices, no problem. It also has SATA 3, which accept SATA 1 and 2. Apple doesn't believe in backwards compatibility, even with its own technology.
Actually, even Firewire was updated. It started out in 1990 as a link that topped out at 50 Mbps. The next generation jumped to 400 Mbps maximum -- with the same connector. The IEEE committee made the move to a different connector when they went to the 800/1600 Mbps version even thought they kept that connector when they finally went to 3200 Mbps over copper. (And Just FYI, Firewire did 3200 Mbps over copper many, many years ago -- shortly after it was picked up as an IEEE standard.) You can go back even further with things like NUBUS being updated and backwardly compatible. Even the 30 pin connector transport stream for the iDevices got updated along the way, but most people (especially the users) never noticed.

The problem is that when Apple makes a jump from one connector to another it either has no apparent reason to do so or does an extremely poor job in explaining to users why they've made the change.

quote:
As to user replaceable hardware, Apple was among the first companies to start the trend of being unable to do your own upgrades or repairs.
Apple has long been a proponent of the computer being an appliance. The original Mac back in 1984 was not designed to be opened or modified in any way. You could add an extra external 400 kB floppy drive, but other than that it was not modifiable. Hell, it didn't even come with an extended keyboard! So the "trend" at Apple started 30 years ago. No one should be surprised that the latest Apple products are not designed to be modified by end users. If your taste (like mine) is to have a product that is configurable by the end user then stay away from certain Apple products.

Apple extending this 30+ year design philosophy to iDevices should be pretty obvious to anyone who has even given a glance to Apple over the years. If you like Apple's philosophy, buy their stuff. If you don't, then don't.

quote:
As to that trade off, that's BS. Other companies have no problem creating removable batteries in thin phones. Look at Samsung's Galaxy S4.
It's not 100% BS. A removable battery inherently weights more or has lower capacity. The removable cover on the phone inherently weighs more or is less rigid. There are tradeoffs. Are those tradeoffs enough to cause you to buy one phone over the other? That's a matter of personal choice.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Tony Swash on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By othercents on 5/22/2013 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
You missed one:

3.) Steal technology and patent it, so you can sue others for the use of that technology.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By retrospooty on 5/22/2013 5:45:26 PM , Rating: 5
That needs to be #1. They REALLY excel at that.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By BRB29 on 5/23/2013 8:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, Samsung steals technology too but they don't sue people. They get sued instead lol.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By testerguy on 5/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By theapparition on 5/23/2013 10:08:19 AM , Rating: 5
Honestly, do you think Motorola and Samsung would be doing that if not for Apple's crusade against them.

Now also be honest. Do you think most of Apple's patents should have even been granted in the first place?

Either way, you can't deny these actions are hurting consumers. Let the market decide.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By xti on 5/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By testerguy on 5/24/2013 2:45:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
do you think Motorola and Samsung would be doing that if not for Apple's crusade against them.


Actually, Motorola sued Apple before Apple sued Motorola.

I'm not sure who started between Samsung and Apple - but they were both definitely suing each other long before any 'crusade' became popular knowledge.

You're ignoring Samsung doing something worse than Apple just because you have a preference.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By retrospooty on 5/24/2013 12:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Actually, Motorola sued Apple before Apple sued Motorola."

"Actually", it all happened in the same month, Oct. 2010 and even though Motorola filed a few weeks ahead of Apple it was a preemptive strike, as Apple had already informed Motorola they were going to be sued several months earlier. I am "actually" sure you already knew that though and you are just purposely spreading your BS as usual.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By testerguy on 5/28/2013 9:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Actually", it all happened in the same month, Oct. 2010


This is irrelevant to and does not change anything about my factual statement. Motorola sued first.

quote:
even though Motorola filed a few weeks ahead of Apple it was a preemptive strike,


Officer, I thought he would punch me so I punched him first. Therefore I am not guilty of punching someone.

You're so blinded by your Apple hate it's ridiculous.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By retrospooty on 5/29/2013 3:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
None of it changes the fact that this is Apples BS patent fight and they announced they would sue first. On another hand there is that whole thermonuclear BS comment and the seedy and totally hippocritical moves behind it (its only OK when Apple copies). BTW I don't hate Apple. I hate loser asses on the internet that feel the need to defend every step any company takes and every product they make.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By ie5x on 5/24/2013 3:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Typical Apple strategy
By Kiffberet on 5/23/2013 7:30:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Always be bad for consumers


I dropped my iphone 4 in the pool. Took it to an Apple store to get a 'damage assessment' report so I could make an insurance claim.
The guy in the shop just replaced the phone with a brand new one, there and then. 'Dont do it again' he said, as I walked out the shop 7 minutes later.

Same with my brother in Australia. His baby smashed the fcuk out of the his phone, so the screen was cracked. Took it to buy a new screen, Apple just gave him a new phone, for free.

Samsung, HTC and everyone else would never do that.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By INeedCache on 5/23/2013 3:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Your last statement. You know this for a fact? You have tried? Do you honestly believe that everyone who breaks their iPhone and takes it back simply gets a new one for free? I'm not trying to take sides here, but 'never' statements annoy me.


RE: Typical Apple strategy
By cyberguyz on 5/23/2013 5:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Should have done it again, made the claim to insurance and use the money to buy a Samsung.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














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