Galaxy Nexus made lawsuit-proof, judge narrows Apple's claims against Samsung
6. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
not all apple's fault. stop being delusional.
12. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
course it's all their fault, no action no re-action. Apple is over reacting about the copying thing they accuse Samsung. Samsung is their biggest threat.
14. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
apple did not start corporate patent law suits. this is not new.
27. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
they made it mainstream.. and even things like the phone's and tab's form factor they sue.. non sensical..
35. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
they didnt make it main stream. the media did.
50. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Not mainstream. Apple took on Samsung because very few companies can afford these expensive legal ventures.
Samsung has been adjudicated in several courts around the world that Samsung infringed on Apple's IP.
66. cheetah2k (Posts: 1526; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
Why is it that when I do a search in Google for "Patent Troll", Apple always comes up???
16. ivanko34 (Posts: 617; Member since: 04 Sep 2011)
apple cannot do anything else. They have no new products to offer, just a single one old model. The only chance of apple is to block the others
18. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
this tired old argument might have some truth to it if apple were having any trouble selling iphones.
so, please, give up on this single one old comment.
24. Doakie (Posts: 1896; Member since: 06 May 2009)
this tired old denial might have some truth to it if apple had not taken 16 months to release their REFRESH to the dated iphone 4.
so, please, give up on this single one old denial.
28. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)
we're talking about innovation, not sales.. no one argues apple's sales.. iphone is always on top of the sales chart.. but not the innovation..
30. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
"The only chance of apple is to block the others"
point was not about innovation, it was about apple's "chance". since it is a business, its "chances" are based on profit, which apple has more of than the competition.
33. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
thats because iOS users are willing to pay super premiums for low to midline equipment. go apple for milking suckers dry.
42. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
is that your generic answer for whenever im right and you have no idiotic point to counter it?
no wonder I hear you repeat ardent's FAILED attempt at discrediting me over n over again.. lol. you guys are so sad, jaded, and pathetic. :)
64. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
remixfa wants the world to believe only he know RD expenses truly belongs in gross margins and damn what US GAAP states.
remixfa like to believe courts in Europe like in Germany and the Netherlands are "kangeroo courts"
remixfa is just so sad and pathetic on so many levels.
remixfa is such an EPIC FAILURE since he is babbling village idiot.
38. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
this is the mindset that kills me.
just because hardware specs are less does not make the entire system inferior. the OS is designed to run efficiently on the hardware they use. you pay for the entire package, hardware AND software and the experience that they provide. you might discount that experience, but there are plenty of very smart people that make an informed decision on the iphone.
44. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i didnt say anything about superiority or inferiority of the entire system. The equipment itself is sub par. it doesnt need to be top notch as iOS isnt as feature filled as android and doesnt need the horsepower.
You are paying for the " apple experience".. which is a nice way of saying you are being charged a premium for the brand name.. and a crazy high premium at that.
I am 100% for capitalism, so if the market (aka you guys) is willing to give apple a 70% profit margin, then go apple for making people care more about brand than value/feature ratios for their dollar. Apple's strength has always been its simple OS, stability, and marketing.
45. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
see, you say your point is on "equipment" (or hardware), but then you bash apple and their customers.
and you say the cost is only for the brand name.
what about battery life? stability? a lag free OS? SPEED????
46. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
........dev support? app optimization?
it really, truly is all the little things.
sorry you're not bright enough to get it.
52. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
He's caught you in your own paradox, remix. On one hand you say the iPhone doesn't need the fastest processor or maximum memory to run smoothly because it's not a true multitasking OS. On the other, you say that the iPhone isn't worth the money because it doesn't have the fastest processor or the most memory. You want to bash both the hardware and software, but you're inadvertantly acknowledging that the hardware and software are well mated.
If you want to talk about the iPhone being overpriced, hit them where it hurts - storage. A $100-200 premium for the 32 or 64 GB model is absurd when you can pick up a 32 GB SD card for $40.
55. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
youre right rol, theyre price for storage is more than it needs to be. but, that has always been true of apple products.
im not really sure why anyone would buy the 32 or 64 (or a card that big for android). i've never had much need for storage and with streaming and cloud growing like crazy it just seems even less needed.
68. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
its not a paradox in the slightest.
iOS does not need the hardware android needs to run smoothly. fact of life. android requires high end hardware to run as smooth as iOS on lower end hardware. thats a bullet point that taco likes to bring up regularly.. how "smooth" iOS is compared to android. Its true. iOS is more "smooth", and andoid is only coming into its "smooth" legs with the new high tech thats out.
from a purely tech perspective.. regardless of OS, the tech that is in the i4s, with exception to its GPU is extraordinarily over priced. Only in Apple's curated ecosystem filled with die hard apple fanatics that are not tech savy, could such a piece of equipment exist at so high a price.
That is also a testament to apple's advertising.. a HUGE testament.
Like I said, im 100% capitalist. If Apple's market can support that pricing, then gooo apple.. all the way to the bank.
If apple catered to the tech crazy bunch that google caters to, that phone would never make it out of the "mid tier" price range, and would be bargain bin in 3 months.
That is also one of the reasons i shoot down people when they say apple should outsource iOS so there are more iOS phones. If competition was introduced into the iOS space, apple's crazy profit margin on the i4s would not exist. It can only be so high because it has zero competition. You want the best apple, your buying this phone... and you are going to pay a huge premium for that.
And yes, the memory premium on top of the iOS premium is just so insane i cant fathom it. Its absolutely idiotic to me. But hey, again, if apple's market can handle it, then go apple for convincing people its a good deal.
All of this is another huuuge reason I could never submit to apple. Regardless of the OS, i can get so much more for my money elsewhere its not funny. Add in the fact that ICS/Gingerbread is sooo far ahead of iOS5, it just seals the deal.
And no, taco, i havent seen a FC in months.
51. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
All it takes is a single model. Millions of customers around the world want that single model. Why can't android OEMs do the same.
54. Dumaru (Posts: 4; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Because with great customization, comes great selections.
69. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
because with competition, comes better value for your money as companies compete for your dollar.
the reason apple makes 70% per phone? Because it makes sure it has zero competition in the iOS space. The i4s would be priced new at $99 if it had competition like androids do.. it would be Bogo in a month, and free in 3 months since its so low on the tech/features/SCREEN ladder.
2. joseg81 (Posts: 194; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
they should just settle out of court and be done with it...in my opinion. just have them pay royalties and don't ban anybody's phone from being sold. atleast that way whoever's copyright is being infringed can just collect some extra cash n make a profit. just stop all the schoolyard back n forth bs. cuz the only ppl that lose here are the ppl that were looking forward to a phone that got banned cuz someone got their panties in a wad.
5. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Agreed. Aren't out of court settlements and profit-sharing the way of "mature" businesses? Thinking of things like Ford licensing Toyota's hybrid tech rather than fighting a patent war, that sort of thing.
7. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
this isnt about short term profit sharing.
it is about long term use of patented ideas. they are going to fight this stuff out (and the consumer gets to suffer)
43. joseg81 (Posts: 194; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
that's the thing though they could cash in on the product that's already made and make sure that the infringing company doesn't redo that mistake on any other handsets made after that one.
3. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
APPLE's new motto:
"If you cannot make a better phone, then sue."
8. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
yeah, its a shame they cant sell any iphones
10. Roadkizzle (Posts: 4; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Yes, but don't kid yourself that because one product sells better than another one it actually is a better product.
McDonalds sells more hamburgers than Fuddruckers, or a gourmet restaurant, but does that mean that McDonald's burgers are clearly better than any other hamburger?
Bud Light is the top selling US beer brand, with 28.5% of the market share in 2010. That in no way shows that Bud Light is the best beer you can buy in the US though.
Products sell well because they market themselves well, not because they are the best product available.
Apple are probably the worlds best marketers, while their phones hardware quality is up for debate, I'd say it is equal with the other phone manufacturers.
The software OS choice is purely a personal one. I can't stand the iPhone OS for a number of personal reasons, while others cannot stand the Android OS for a number of their own personal reasons, but neither one is inherently better than the other.
53. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
That makes no sense. All the marketing in the world won't get consumers to buy a dud (forever).
McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers at its price point. Fuddruckers or gourmet hamburgers sell at higher price points and thus have a smaller consumer pool to work with, other things being equal.
Bud light is probably the best beer for the average American taste. Americans like beer and probably feel better that the beer has fewer calories than its traditional full calorie sibling.
What you don't undertand is that unless the consumer gets the same or better utility in the exchange, money for McDonald burgers or money for Bud Light, the consumer is better off without the product. All the marketing in world won't get consumers to buy bad products forever. Marketing may get you to buy a bad product once, but it won't keep you from buying that horrible product over and over again.
58. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Price point is where any iPhone-Big Mac-Bud Light analogies fall flat for me. Of course the cheapest, most ubiquitous products tend to sell in volume. Apple managed to make the iPhone ubiquitous and expensive and desireable. The sheer variety out there (a good thing in my book) means there will be no single ubiquitous Android phone.
I don't know if there is another product out there that commands the price, respect and devotion of the iPhone. Gotta give that to Apple.
70. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
ok.. how about a louix vitton bag. They are extremely ugly over priced and under delivering hand bag yet those stupid monstrosities sell for thousands if not 10's of thousands of dollars.
because they are expensive, so people want them. people want what they cant afford.
72. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Except that people *can* afford an iPhone. Ubiquitous, desireable, iconic, expensive yet attainable. People for the most part aren't buying iPhones as a status symbol, they're buying it "because it's the iPhone." And they're getting a good (albeit overpriced) product and a smooth user experience. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not what YOU want in a phone.
4. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
good, there goes all those idiotic "iphone copy" suites.
11. Roadkizzle (Posts: 4; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
They're idiotic because you can't patent a rectangle.
They're idiotic because Apple copied all of their design ideas from other manufacturers in the first place.
Edit: In the words of Steve Jobs. "Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
17. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
no idea, especially in the tech world, is 100% original. but some are unique enough to be patentable. thus we have our legal system to protect those unique ideas. there is a difference between legally borrowing ideas and patent infringement. maybe apple has something with their suit, maybe not. the judge thats making the decision is MUCH more qualified than you or me. the fact that the case has gone this far certainly means it is not "idiotic" otherwise it would have been thrown out very quickly.
not one of us posting in this thread knows more than the judge or the lawyers involved.
19. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
You have that much faith in the legal system?
26. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
no, not really.
but, if the case were that absurd, it wouldnt make it as far as it has. thats all im saying.
and i do have faith in the intelligence of the lawyers and judge(s) affiliated with this case.
31. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
While I do think the case absolutely has validity (not to the degree of banning products that Apple seems to think) it is ABSOLUTELY NOT because "if the case were that absurd, it wouldn't make it as far as it has"
If you do a little legal research, there have been many, many, maaaaaany absolutely absurd lawsuits that continue through the legal system.
The fact of the matter is, this is a tough situation. While Apple is in a way right, I don't think it's worth banning Samsungs products.
But that's why i'm not a judge I guess.
34. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
a lot of it has been thrown out. almost all of apple's victories have been in the kangaroo courts of other countries. really.. your submitting a bar napkin drawing as evidence of something?? come on.
59. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
I think remix just dissed the entire Australian justice system.
75. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
and german. sorry, but any lawsuit that can be taken seriously with what equates to generic bar napkin drawings... is taken seriously only in a kangaroo court.
65. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Kangeroo courts like in Germany or the Netherlands or both?
What a FU person. So sad.
13. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
They are idiotic because a lot of the things that Apple is claiming Samsung copied are merely form factor... The fact that a judge ACTUALLY simply held up a GT10.1 and an iPad2 and asked the Samsung lawyers to differentiate is ridiculous.
What do you want Samsung to do? Make a triangle tablet? Purposefully make it thicker so it doesn't look like an iPad? Gimme a f**kin' break. Maybe if the home screen on a GT10.1 ACTUALLY looked ANYTHING like the "home screen" (app drawer) of an iPad, they would have an argument.
It's unfortunate for Apple because things that had previously been "exclusive" to them are now being used by other companies, but that is REALITY.
This post could be seen as a "fandroid" post but as i've said before, I am not loyal to any particular brand or OS but what I AM loyal to is quality and performance. If Apple came out with an iPhone that I believed to be better than the Android phones available, I would buy an iPhone.
15. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
its a fine line.
the fact that samsung's lawyer (one of them) couldnt tell the difference says a lot, imo. if nothing else, that lawyer should know the difference. and wasnt the screen on when they held them up (or am i just thinking of the image from the article)?
all tablets do look similar, but the gt10.1 looks a bit (however small) more like the ipad two other random tablets might. again, a fine line. its nothing worthy of making apple out to be an outrageous, evil company that invented suing over patent infrengement. that is just nowhere close to the truth (but is the picture that gets painted in EVERY apple law suit article comment section)
20. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
Dude, the only real difference when the screen is off (in this case it was) is the home button. From 15-20 ft + that would be difficult to spot, especially given the fact that it's black like the tablet itself.
The reason Apple gets painted to be an "evil company" in these articles is because they are using their patents to BAN other products. People infringe on other peoples patents all the time, and generally there are royalties involved.
Patents were invented so people could get CREDIT for their ideas not so that those ideas could necessarily be entirely exclusive to their company. I don't understand why Apple can't just take their royalties that they DO deserve, accept the fact that some people will STILL choose Samsung over Apple and be happy that they have enough people buying millions of iPhones anyway.
21. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
I think when it comes to the tablet space, Apple is getting a GM mentality. They've been making record profits in part because of the iPad, and if their market share drops from 90% down to a more reasonable 50%, they'll have to admit that to their shareholders. But Samsung and others are undoubtedly going to improve on and differentiate from the iPad and chip away at Apple's market share. I think this is a clear attempt to litigate their way to market ownership.
22. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
i have no issues with apple suing even though what they have some how managed to patents are vague shapes such as a rectangle lol but what does annoy many is the fact that apple is trying to ban products and take choices away from the consumer ans whether your fan of apple or not you cannot agree that taking choices away from us is a good thing...i dont think i have heard of phone manufactures etc trying to ban products until apple.
23. roldefol (Posts: 4108; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
True, and what about people who simply don't like Apple? They're basically being told if you don't want Apple's tablet, you can't have a tablet period. That's not a healthy path to market growth.
29. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
google "patent suit ban"
plenty of articles about apple, but plenty about other companies as well.
THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE TO APPLE SITUATION!!!!!!!!!!
toyota, nintendo, bmw, sony, LG all facing or seeking banning products based on patent suits.
32. iamcc (Posts: 1319; Member since: 07 Oct 2011)
"The eight Sony patents in the federal court case include ones related to a way to display telephone-number listings, direction keys on a portable phone and signal transmission."
(The eight Sony patents in the federal court case include ones related to a bunch of stuff that is not THE GENERAL SHAPE OF THE DEVICE)
"In July 2008, Rambus filed suit against Nvidia, claiming the company violated some 17 patents. Infringing products included those with memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, and GDDR3 SDRAM. Nvidia's general counsel, David Shannon, said the company would continue to contest the commission's initial decision, but if the ITC upholds the ruling, Nvidia may have to license the technology patents in question from Rambus."
Keywords: "Nvidia may have to license the technology patents in question from Rambus"
Apple is not even giving Samsung the option to license said patents.
I could probably find more articles, but the reality is that this is the first time a company's ONLY OBJECTIVE is to prevent their competitors products from being sold.
It is worth noting that all of these lawsuits happened the first time Apple has failed to meet expected profits/sales in six years. When did the iPhone come out again?
39. ayephoner (Posts: 850; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
"toyota, nintendo, bmw, sony, LG all facing or seeking banning products based on patent suits."
it might not be the sole objective, but it is there. this is not the first time this has happened. i assure you.
any of you insisting otherwise are just part of the kool aid drinking simpletons that blindly bash apple for any and every thing that they do. stop feeling so compelled to post your inferiority complex all over every article.