Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

slashgear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 203 posts

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#71

Post by jsz0 »

notatoad wrote: post #30
raganwald wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market. Are my products terrible? Obviously not! Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I…

Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, th…

You're trying to apply common-sense to law. That doesn't work. The court has to assume the patent is valid until it's proven otherwise. The patent was legitimately granted though it can and will be challenged. This is important because it explains why these patents are continuously being tested in the court. Apple is being offensively sued by various parties themselves. They need to have strong patents that have been validated by court rulings to defend themselves. Companies are less likely to sue Apple if they have a strong war chest of patents. The reason certain companies are able to get 'picked on' is the lack of a strong war chest to defend themselves. Samsung is a very rich company yet they are getting it from both Apple and previously Microsoft who simply offered licensing. Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation if they don't play by the absurd rules.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#72

Post by thechut »

raganwald wrote: post #18
ars wrote: post #4

I'm starting to hate Apple more and more. Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they stop acting like this.

Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? Let’s say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market. Are my products terrible? Obviously not! Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I…

I think that some people need to stop their blind love of Apple products and take a step back and look at how unethically Apple is behaving in some of these cases. Just because you think your gadgets are sexy and cool doesn't mean Apple can do whatever it wants. Competition exists for a reason, I know that most people here are smart enough to recognize that.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#73

Post by jmduke »

taligent wrote: post #21
smokinn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it borderline impossible? There's a technique pretty much every company that knows what's it doing applies to figure out exactly what you mentioned and it's called downstream impact analysis. I'm absolutely 100% certain if you're an executive at Apple and you ask your finance department what the downstream impact is of an iPhone sale the finance department will come back with numbers for the profit variance wh…

In the words of the court, "The Court finds that the full extent of these losses would likely be unascertainable, difficult to calculate, and irreparable." And I fully agree that the finance department would be able to calculate the expected profit per customer for today's products. But what about tomorrow's ? And the next year ? Apple locks in the user at multiple points: apps, movies, TV shows, books, accessories e…

You're using circular logic. "The court finds theory of irreparable harm to be plausible because the court finds that the full extent of these losses would be irreparable."

OP's entire argument is that the court's finding is incorrect and that's why its a victory for Apple's lawyers -- I think you're severely underestimating the forecasting techniques used, especially in a company as competent as Apple.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#76

Post by evmar »

methodin wrote: post #74

This actually got me wondering if Google has ever sued someone in the same manner and it does not appear as if they have. I find that very interesting - does anyone have any links to the contrary?

Google (like many tech companies, I think?) promises their employees that patents will only be used defensively.

The only related example is that Motorola Mobility recently began a patent suit against Microsoft and then Google acquired them (in that order) so it's unclear whether that promise applies.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#77

Post by flatline3 »

jvm wrote: post #58
flatline3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unfortunate that taligent has been downvoted into the negatives, because he (or she) is correct. How much is market leadership worth? How big of a check would Apple have to write RIM to restore their market advantage? How big of a check would Apple have to write Nokia to put them back where they were in the marketplace 4 years ago? I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market ad…

> I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market advantage. I think you're considering the status or intangible satisfaction of being the market leader. That is not what Apple's shareholders are interested in. They are interested in money. If Apple had the choice between getting a check for all the money they would ever earn for all their products and liquidating the company, vs. remaining in…

Apple hasn't innovated into market leadership for status or intangible satisfaction. They've done it because that's what you have to do to keep those "big checks" rolling in.

If Samsung gobbles up market share, a big check won't bring that back, and a check big enough to account for it would probably bankrupt Samsung (assuming you could ever calculate what that numer would be).

Let's pretend that Samsung drove Apple out of business by rapidly copying Apple's R&D and competing directly on price. Just how big of a check would be required to set things to right?

We can use an analogy instead of hypotheticals. Imagine I've stockpiled grain for the winter. Winter has arrived, and suddenly, so does the army. They commandeer my grain and promise to write a check for its market value. The next spring, I get the check in the mail. Unfortunately for me, my family already starved.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#80

Post by raganwald »

pm90 wrote: post #69
raganwald wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are fine arguments against Apple’s business strategies, but not arguments that Apple’s products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple’s products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.

Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without bei…

I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition.”

I accept that you don’t say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.

Post reply on HN