Apple Forces Google To Degrade Android Features 498
walterbyrd writes "The latest in the ridiculous saga of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, which has resulted in Samsung phones and tablets being banned from sale in the U.S. is that Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse. Yes, the OTA update is designed to take away a feature, in an effort to convince the judge that the phones no longer violate Apple's patents. The feature in question? The ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet."
If it were Adobe (Score:2, Funny)
You'd have to pay to be de-graded!
Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to kill off the patent system. It has become absurd.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Apple should be killed first. I have never seen a worse bully or a sorer loser. The tech industry needs to rid itself off this idiocy of a company once and for all. With all the money they have, they have the power now to completely annihilate innovation in the entire tech World. Things were better when they did not have that kind of money power; atleast then they had the hunger to build better products. Instead of quashing competition in the Courts and with the FTC.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.
thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.
Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).
It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...
what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.
anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.
thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.
Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).
It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...
what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.
anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.
It is a step beyond this with Apple. THey all agree not to use or do cross licensing and patent protection rackets with each other so if a third party comes in and sues they can combine forces and sue for defense.
But not Apple. Apple is everyone MUST OWN AN IPHONE or no phone at all. Everyone who makes phones needs to go out of business or leave the market to Apple altogether. They are extreme and fanatical and wont stop unless everyone but Apple is out of business. You can't negotiate with them as they do not want your profits. THey want you out of the market so Jobs vision of him outdoing Bill Gates succeeds. Tim's Cook ego is more important than your needs to your device you paid for.
I think anti trust laws need to go to Apple as this is beyond the equivalent of giving away IE 6 for free. This is more like if MS sued every OEM who dared include any other browser and used the FTC to ban the downloads and imports of every browser but IE 6. Apple is much more agresive and is using its money to block competitors from entering the market.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple can't have total domination, they know that, there's always going to be some low margin devices from their age old competitor & factories that make their devices. they're fine with duopoly though, they know they don't have to fear windows phone that much and there's room for two on the market - but if both iOS and windows phone become niches among android versions that's bad business for both.
Strange modding on my post though. it's not a troll, just statement of current facts - thing is though if you're a ms fan or an apple fan you're going to get pissed at the truth. if it's a troll how come nobody was trolled? no counter arguments?
modding it overrated or off topic would be more apt if anything. these parties were suing each other just few years ago, but not that long ago they stopped that and all are aiming just making android less feasible - MS with demanding money from every android shipped and apple just outright gunning for blocking and the Nokia vs. Apple schism that could have caused trouble to Apple was brought to settlement after Nokia was brought to MS camp, the sums that were in public about that were so large they could have been used for short blocking, much more so than what Apple is using against nexus now, even oracles lawsuit could be seen as extension of that battle(even more so taking that Ellison is connected and was connected with Jobs). I'm not going to go all apk on it and start providing links for the things though, if someone wants consultation why I know all this and why it's true they'll have to look me up and pay relevant fees for my time - though it's all backed up by public news and documents, so I don't see why anyone who can google news articles would bother(not under nda's, no sauna talks, no bar talks - none of that sort led to these conclusions so I'm fine on that, can't sue me).
and this isn't even near the ugliest things going on in mobile business.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
Is that sarcasm? I can't even understand what the previous poster is trying to say. It seems like some sort of conspiracy theory involving Apple and MS, but the sentence structure is as torturous as the "logic".
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Informative)
To name the most obvious.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's corporate culture seems to favour aggressive psychopaths more than any other, we all know what a lunatic Jobs could be and Cook seems to be little different. There are times now where I long for the days of Ballmer dancing around like a chimp, at least we got a cheap laugh out of his chemically imbalanced grey matter.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's corporate culture favors aggressive psychopaths. Microsoft's corporate culture favors incompetent and overweight psychopaths.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Apple helped MS make the Windows GUI
Uhm, what? You mean they both "stole" GUI idea from Xerox?
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal.
It is also legal to be greedy and avaricious, and in some cases, immoral and unethical. Though legal, such behavior still needs defending.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of morally wrong things people can do that are still legal. It's possible to harrass your neighbour in so many ways that just fall short of breaking the law, to the point they are suicidal, but if you don't do it then it doesn't mean somebody else will.
Apple are a morally bankrupt company, that got lucky in launching a product at the right time technological advances made it possible, then are using their extensive cash piles to destroy innovation. Business suffers, consumers suffer, the only winner is Apple being able to flog off their inferior technology for a couple more years whilst they censor their rivals from the marketplace.
Phillip.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Got lucky launching *a* product at the right time?
Are you thinking of the same Apple as I am? One is a fluke, any more than that and it's far more than luck. Whatever you think of Apple, attributing their rise from near-death into one of the biggest companies in tech down to luck is to severely underestimate your "enemy", if that's how you want to position yourself (given the rest of your comment).
Perhaps this is why Apple have such an easy time of it. Their competitors think it's all down to luck and fanaticism.
For the record: strongly disagree with this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on what you call success, pre iPad Apple was just another big bad company on the market, after the iPad it was the biggest badest of them all.
I still don't have to buy from them ... (Score:5, Interesting)
having been an Apple fan for many years, owning multiple iMacs, Macbooks, iPod devices, and iPads, I am through with buying their products. Perhaps I should have stopped earlier but it just seems 2012 is the year when Apple jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> What they do is legal. The problem is the system.
Do you defend all patent trolls, or just Apple?
The system may have problems, but Apple chose to file all of those bogus patents, and Apple chose to file all of those bogus lawsuits. Apple should be held accountable for what Apple does.
You are simply trying to deflect the blame from Apple, and that's BS. Just because the system is abusable does not mean that Apple is forced to abuse it.
Not true (Score:3)
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.
Yeah, it's got tons of prior art, but so the hell what? Until Google pays its pound of flesh in money and time to have it invalidated, that doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. That's not fanboyism, that's just the way the system works.
Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition. If that means obtaining a patent that will at some point later be ruled invalid and then using it to temporarily take your competitor's products off the market, or better yet, get them to disable certain feature of it, that conveys a certain impression to a lot of your competitor's existing and would-be customers: that 1) your competitor cannot be relied upon to deliver said features, and 2) that your competitor is basically creating knock-offs of your superior product.
There is a really damn good chance that this patent will be invalidated at some point--I'm hoping it during this trial. But the damage is done, and even though the patent isn't valid, Apple will have won a marketing battle from it.
The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.
Even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow (fat chance...), the GP is also right that there will always be another company right behind them using the same practices to thwart its competition and get ahead. Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Apple doing this, what are you going to do about the 158 companies lined up right behind Apple to extract their pound of flesh from Google? Try to squash them too? Good luck with that.
In the meantime, sane, rational people like the GP understand that the only way to solve this problem once and for all is to change the system so that it doesn't depend on companies being ethical. Take away their weapons, software patents, and we won't have to worry about Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else using the shitty system like this any more, and companies like Google (and yes, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) can focus more of their time, energy, and money on producing cool products instead of fighting these incessant court battles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad fact is that it's probably easier to get Apple to behave than change the system.
Re: (Score:3)
As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition.
Apple might do that, but not all companies will do whatever they can legally do to thwart its competition.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not obliged to be an asshole. Other companies can do exactly the same, but they don't. Because they're not comprised of sociopaths. The problem isn't solely "in the system", but also in the companies that are immoral assholes. They're not doing something illegal. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is good.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is already dropping Google maps from IOS 6. Google testified before Congress that 66% of their mobile revenue came from IOS devices.
Google pays Apple 100 million a year to be the default search engine.
Re: (Score:3)
Google pays Apple 100 million a year to be the default search engine.
Not according to this [businessinsider.com].
Google testified before Congress that 66% of their mobile revenue came from IOS devices.
Seems unlikely now there are more Android devices out there than iOS, and the gap is only getting bigger. Unless iOS users are more likely to click on ads or something, which also seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a hard time selling shit to people who expect everything for free.
And who are these people?
I don't think you understand the market demographics. Android isn't for nerds, or geeks, or FOSS people, its for everyone. My father has an android phone, and he wouldn't know a kernel if it bit him in the ass, same for most of my friends (only 2 own iOS devices). My dad has spent far more on Android apps than I ever will, I'm guessing my friends are in the same camp (not being nerds, and not being free-software types). You really can't say, looking at market figures, that the n
Re: (Score:3)
Uh no, Motorola sued first.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, this article is about the tussle between Apple and Samsung's Android offerings. I very clearly remember that Apple started the mindlessness vs Samsung first.
Google was not directly sued by Apple, but the suits against Samsung and HTC were enough motivation for Google to acquire MMI and take some counter action.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Informative)
No, Apple sued first. The fact that Apple sued a different Android vendor than Motorola is immaterial, it was still a direct troll patent attack on Android.
2010, Mar 02: Apple sues HTC over 10 patents and files an ITC complaint against HTC over 10 other patents. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
All was fairly quiet in the mobile business due to what was essentially mutually assured destruction. Apples first successful entry into the mobile phone market brought with it an asymmetric patent playing field, as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out and only a few players actually had lots of patents for this new market.
Apple fired first and it took less than a year after that for the entire market to be ablaze with lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out
Is this what Palm had been doing for a while?
Re:Kill Patents (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Typical Apple Hater whining (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple thinks they're winning, when in reality they're losing.
Take a look around. I see more and more people complaining about Apple. I know someone who had a macbook pro that just broke. Apple wanted him to buy another. He looked at PC laptops and asked a friend of mine why PC laptops were so much cheaper and had the same if not better specs.
He now owns a pc laptop. He was a die hard mac user.
Apple is ridiculously controlling and overpriced. Users dont want that. Users want cool, so they put up with the fist fucking you get as an apple customer.
Re:Typical Apple Hater whining (Score:5, Insightful)
I was in this boat. I was never a die hard Apple fan, but I did like their products. I had a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, an iPad, and two different models of iPod. Eventually, I just got tired of it. I got tired of the expense, I got tired of the smug "Just Works" banter even though I constantly had problems keeping everything synced up, I got tired of being told that I don't have rights to play such-and-such on so-en-so device, and so on.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when I decided I wanted to write a little iOS app and applied to the Apple developer program. I sent my application and my $99. They sent me an e-mail saying they needed proof of my identity. I didn't like that--what the hell difference does it make?--but went ahead and sent them a copy of my driver license with the license number blacked out. (It's none of their damn business what my license number is.) They sent me another e-mail saying they wanted an unaltered copy of my id, and it has to be notarized. That was around the same time that a bunch of stories were hitting Slashdot about developers complaining about how long it was taking apps to be approved, about Google Voice getting smacked down, and Apple demanding that all of its apps be developed in Objective C.
At that point, I'd had enough. I demanded by $99 back in a note telling them I'd decided to develop for Android instead and sold my MacBook Pro. I held on to my iPhone until the contract ran out, and last December, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which which I have been absolutely giddy--it's a much better device, in my opinion. I still have the physical iOS devices (the iPhone and iPad) that I use to make sure web sites I work on work in iOS's Safari browser, but at this point, I'm not looking back.
Apple lost a customer and a developer over their shenanigans, and furthermore, I recommend against buying Apple to my friends and family. I still think the company is very innovative and they have top-notch design teams. They're able to accomplish a lot of amazing things. But other companies these days are accomplishing amazing things too, and in the end, it's just not worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
The PC was better because it had an open architecture and was expandable. The others mostly weren't. On top of that, the PC was cloned (because of its open architecture), making for much more competition. It's a lot better to have a crappier standard that you can get interchangeable parts from multiple manufacturers for, than a superior standard that you can only get from one place at an inflated price.
Re:Kill Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire system is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent examiners are not stupid. But their performance reviews hinge on the number of patent application cases they were able to close. Rejecting a patent is much more time consuming than accepting it, because one has to justify it towards the applicants who are most certain to appeal the decision anyway, creating even more paperwork. So there is a strong incentive for any patent examiner to just rubber stamp with approval, resulting in the mess we currently observe.
The reason behind this lies in the fact that it is politically desired to artificially inflate the numbers of patents granted in a country, because that is widely seen as an indicator for innovation. And of course, that is just another instance of Campbell's law [wikipedia.org].
Re:Kill Patents - Three Strikes (Score:4, Interesting)
They should introduce a three strikes system, if you get injunctions and three or more of your patents are struck down, you don't get any more injunctions. You can still sue for damages after the fact, but no more blocking competitors with irrelevant tat.
I think that solves 90% of the problems with the current system. There's still the issue of needing the EFF to provide lawyers to people that aren't able to fight Apple/Oracle etc.. but they're not really that interested in those suits anyway, there's not enough money in the individual's accounts to pay the legal fees.
Re: (Score:3)
improvement (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually prefer separate web searches and local searches. I find it annoying that the default Android search sends query terms over the web to Google, and I rarely if ever find the mixed searches useful.
As far as I can tell, I can turn off mixed global/local search, but I end up having to choose one or the other with the Google search app. Or is there some way I can get separate shortcuts for local and web searches?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you like it that way, having them reach out and take a feature away sucks.
Reminds me of when Amazon pulled copies of 1984 off of kindles.
Re:improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
Your personal views on the matter are completely irrelevant. That a company can be forced to remove a feature that it has provided in the desktop market for almost a decade, in order to not violate a patent that ought not to have been granted; vindicates Posner's views that the patent system is truly broken and absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this is new, you really don't know much about patents. We've had cases like this going back more than a century. This particular example actually shows more that these kinds of bad patents are becoming less and less relevant with increasingly software-driven products, products that can be updated essentially overnight. At some point, Apple will hopefully figure out that they are just embarrassing themselves with these kinds of legal shenanigans.
Should the patent system be fixed to prevent thi
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen a "feature" this idiotic since Microsoft removed normal file name search and replaced it with a poor man's Google. Now I can't search for a file by the name I want, but it searches through all files on the whole god damned computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have one and I agree 100% with the GP.
webOS had this (Score:2)
Did they license it, or is there more to this story?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't webOS use tech from Palm which bought Apple/Newton tech way back when?
More to this story (Score:2)
This dispute is entirely about what will happen to the Apple share price if Samsung's higher end phones overtake Apple's sales. US shareholders don't seem to care about the world market, only the US one. Therefore, Apple executiv
Do net cheer any software patent victories... (Score:5, Informative)
This is just the kind of software patent that really strikes fear into smaller developers, since it's a technique that comes to mind naturally (I've had search boxes that have done mixed kinds of searches for decades).
I have never cheered "victories" even from companies I like, for any software patents... these truly are things that need to be abolished as patentable.
At this point though, I do not think the international community will allow it unless we get some REALLY strong support from government...
Question? (Score:2)
Why no voice maps on iPhone? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why no voice maps on iPhone? (Score:5, Funny)
Bing is becoming acceptable.
Bwahahahahahah....*catches breath*....hahahahahahaha...when can I buy your DVD?
Re: (Score:3)
Well Bing as a search engine is a joke. Bing maps is absolutely gorgeous, though. It's a shame they don't offer an Android app for it, because the bird's eye view is really nice, and it works in places (parks, trails, private roads) where Google street view doesn't. (Obviously I'm not buying an MS smartphone to use this, but if MS were to put their pathetic efforts in the mobile area to rest, and instead offer apps - that might actually work.)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks Apple!!! (Score:5, Funny)
We all love you really, now die in a fire!!!
I think this is a good time to post... (Score:5, Interesting)
this TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]
I think it's time to start calling technology utilitarian and start removing protections before this sector crashes...
On the bright side... (Score:2)
......as bad as the handset makers/carriers for Android phones are at getting updates out, most of these handsets will be obsolete by the time this 'update' gets pushed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this case deals with the Galaxy Nexus, for which Google controls the updates directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for them, their business partners have established such a low level of success that they can do nothing and show that they have exceeded the industry standard.
patent thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the patent be on how it's done and not that it's done at all? That's like patenting the concept of a machine that seperates fibers from its seeds and not actually patenting the cotton gin itself.
Nice inflametory headline (Score:2)
Especially since the article in question doesn't use it. Apple didn't "force" Google to do anything, Google gave up a feature to avoid a patent fight. Not that the actual article is much better. I hate most of these stupid patents, but don't go around like Apple was whacking Google with a stick to remove a feature. Blame the judge for his ruling, if anything.
And I don't even have an iPhone. I don't even have a smartphone.
"Worse" (Score:2)
"Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse."
The connotation of "worse" is that it was already bad to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
The connotation of "worse" is that it was already bad to begin with.
Fine it's not my native language, but come on: that's complete nonsense. How do you think "less good" is expressed?
Futile attempt (Score:2)
A futile attempt to make Android worse than Apple. But a successful attempt to leave Apple's engineering reputation in tatters.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)
How can Google Chrome be prior art to a patent that was filed 4 years before Chrome existed?
So the patent is to use Google on your phone (Score:3)
uh, the prior art was also Google's? (Score:3)
how the hell does that NOT reflect exactly what Google Desktop already did - search locally and search internet in same results set?
nevermind the obviousness of such an idea...
but then again, it isn't THAT obvious given that I don't think i've ever actually searched my phone before except while it was mounted as a filesystem on some other O/S...
That's fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make it an US-only "update" and don't bring this bullshit to the rest or the world, where the patent system isn't (completely) torn to hell.
Boycott Apple (Score:3)
Rotten Apple: Apple's lousy design patent lawsuits
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols | July 5, 2012 -- Updated 23:47 GMT (16:47 PDT)
> Summary: If Apple continues to have its way it will be illegal to buy anything that looks like a tablet because it will infringe on Apple's “design” patent.
> In the last couple of months a boycott Apple movement has started. It started as a protest about working conditions in Apple's Chinese partners factories. But the banning of the Galaxy Tab seems to have given it new life.
http://www.zdnet.com/rotten-apple-apples-lousy-design-patent-lawsuits-7000000356/
Apple Granted Patent for Head-Mounted Display
By Christina BonningtonEmail Author July 3, 2012
> Google’s been flaunting its Google Glass prototype left and right, but it may not be the only company getting into the head-up-display business. Apple was granted a patent for a head-mounted display apparatus on Tuesday.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-patent-hud-display/
Google Jellybean smokes Apple Siri
By Joe Wilcox | July 7, 2012
> But there's a strange twist here. Google removed important search functionality from Android 4.1 in response to US Patent 8,086,604, which Apple successfully used to gain preliminary injunctions against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus.
http://betanews.com/2012/07/06/google-jellybean-smokes-apple-siri/
Federal Court of Appeals denies Samsung’s stay request on Galaxy Tab ban
Kevin Krause | Jul 6th 2012 at 4:30pm
> After Samsung was denied a temporary lift of a ban on their Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier in the week, the news isn’t getting much better. The US Court of Appeals has denied the Korean mobile manufacturers request for a stay on the ban issued by US District Judge Lucy Koh. With the ruling, Samsung’s only hope to get the tablet back on the US market is to reach some sort of licensing deal or settlement with Apple, an avenue that is reportedly being explored jointly with Google.
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/06/federal-court-of-appeals-denies-samsungs-stay-request-on-galaxy-tab-ban/
Android Win: Apple Blasted for Trolling, Sees EU Patents Decimated
Jason Mick (Blog) - July 5, 2012 3:10 PM
> "Obvious" patents should never have been granted, given prior art
> Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) international quest to kill Android, not by competition, but by lawsuits hit a roadblock in the United Kingdom when a Judge ruled Apple's patents to swipe-to-unlock patents to be invalid due to obviousness and prior art.
http://www.dailytech.com/Android+Win+Apple+Blasted+for+Trolling+Sees+EU+Patents+Decimated/article25104.htm
Apple pulls out of EPEAT green registration, may not be able to sell computers to federal agencies
By Steve Dent posted Jul 7th 2012 2:18AM
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/07/apple-pulls-out-of-epeat-green-registration/
How Steve Jobs Fooled the Leader of the Free World and His Opponents
In 2006 Samsung released the SGH-Z610, a phone that had a gesture based touchscreen, app drawer, front and rear facing cameras – the works.
http://theworldwarrior.com/?p=614
LG Prada
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Informative)
If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.
Can you be a bit more explicit about what you think this license fee is? And preferably cite a source for it? Because my understanding - and I'm happy to be shown wrong - is that Apple is suing not for a fee but to prevent the features being used.
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Jobs, in his own words said: "We have always been shameless at stealing good ideas" [youtube.com]
He equally have said "we have always been shameless" and stopped right there.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, too many people think "innovation" means "first to make it". And that is not true at all. Those who do real innovation just happen to be first. But there are things that are not innovation, even though someone does it first. Whether something is or is not innovative is often a subjective matter. Innovating is creating something others generally CANNOT create. It is NOT creating something others just happened to not create (because they were busy creating something else). The test ... p
Re: (Score:3)
why not try refuting it if it is wrong instead of demanding someone downmod them?
License to Search? (Score:4, Interesting)
Licensing fee? For what? License fee to search your local device? This is patentable?
Good fucking grief! This reminds me of Amazon's patents on single-click ads.
The rotten bastards at Apple have patented ordinary concepts that they have no business patenting. There needs to be patent reform.
Next those bastards will patent the word "phone" so that anybody selling one has to pay fees to Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
The quality of patents is so low they are a joke. Good luck with expecting the China to aknowledge them
Re: (Score:3)
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
paying for a valid innovative licence yes I agree.
BUT a patent exists for a single search of local AND internet?
This is classed as logical development and in any sane country isn't patentable. Searching local has existed for ages (but if a patent existed for that sure licence it), searching the internet is what google does... todo a search checking local and net is a logical evolution.
Best thing is people just stop selling in america leave the locals to Microsoft and apple
Re: (Score:2)
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
didn't google desktop also do searches for both ?
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
didn't google desktop also do searches for both ?
Yeah, it did - and I found it quite annoying. And (tangentially related), before that, I remember Internet Explorer trying to blur the line between what was on the local machine and out on the web.
I'm not an anti-patent zealot; but it seems pretty obvious ALL software patents need to be invalidated. I don't care what kind of capital Apple, Google, Microsoft, et. al. have wrapped up in them - this has gotten ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows has done this for years when searching for device drivers...
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL; Gotta laugh when a search patent is being used against Google. Not saying anything on the merits, but still...
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people pay the mob. Some people fight the mob. Samsung - and now Google - has chosen to fight the mob. I think they are right in doing so. When it comes to paying the danegeld [wikipedia.org], rule one is 'never pay the danegeld'. Just ask Shakespeare:
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
âfâfâfNo matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
âfâfâfAnd the nation that plays it is lost!"
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? If you think Samsung is some kind of angel then you're sadly mistaken because they've demanded their fair share of danegelds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung#Price_cartels [wikipedia.org]
Re:six hundred dollars? (Score:5, Informative)
Not Shakespeare, Rudyard Kipling:
Re: (Score:3)
it's a feature from '90s.
the patent is a rehash combination of earlier patents.
also, nokia had this on mobile phones mid 'zeros I think. nobody fucking used it since it had couple of sucky points...
Re: (Score:2)
One of the stupidest things about PI (Patant Insanity) is the current trend of getting patents on things that are alre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.
FTFY.
Re:Didn't Google do this first? (Score:5, Funny)
Grep on Unix had this feature long before Apple was a company.
FTFY.
How does that work exactly?
grep "search term" /dev/mypc_and_theinternet?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They exist. I've got a cheapo Samsung phone from Walmart using their Straightalk service. 1000 anytime minutes for $30 a month. It works everywhere and I don't have to charge it every 6 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
god is it that hard to actually follow the law. apple uses tons of "other people's patents" but guess what they actually pay for them! Duh!
Yes, that is why if you Google "Apple pays patent lawsuit" [google.com] you will get no results. Unlike most of us on Slashdot who think that software patents have devolved into a corporate arms race that has created a minefield for independent developers; Apple considers it a civic, perhaps patriotic, duty to proactively find and pay for patents that apply to their product lines.
not.
duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the fact the iPhone has sold over 100 million units...