Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#171

Post by karolist » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:26 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #29

This is particularly sad because the Galaxy Nexus is a brilliant phone running stock Android. I've found the stock Android ICS experience to be much better than what you can find with a version of Android modified by the vendor (at least for the other phones I've seen). I'm pretty sure it's one of the best options for Android phones, period.

What other options have you tried? My experience with stock ICS (AOSP based ROMs) are terrible, the GUI is unintuitive, simplistic to the point of being ugly and rather limited in functionality as opposed to older versions of MIUI (not based on ICS). Sense is not only ugly, but slow too, I have not tried touchwiz to comment on that.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#172

Post by ConstantineXVI » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:32 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #31

azakai wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Samsung is shipping a device with the software. Parent law does require that the patent be tied to a physical device. IANAL.

Indeed. Source code is speech, and speech cannot infringe patents. (Not saying this is logical, that's just what the case law says.) That's why you can build an mp3 player from source without paying the license fee, but Debian can't ship you a compiled mp3 player.

So if shipping source only is perfectly legal, what's to stop OEMs from simply shipping infringing components as source only and compiling on first boot? Strictly speaking, the user initiated the compile (by powering on the device), so Samsung would be in the clear. Technically legal, but I have the feeling this wouldn't survive court.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#173

Post by DenisM » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:35 PM UTC

Ok, so I just went ahead and ordered a Galaxy Nexus phone. I've been meaning to do this for a while now to see if I want to port my apps to the Android platform, and here Apple just pushed me to do it. :/

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#174

Post by DenisM » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:36 PM UTC

Galaxy Nexus is a direct competitor to the iPhone, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a direct competitor to the iPad.

Now, if Apple goes after Nexus 7, we will know that they are planning a 7" iPad-mini.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#175

Post by raganwald » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:07 PM UTC

runevault wrote: post #101

raganwald wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.

I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor’s original designs and products.

The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#176

Post by dedward » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:10 PM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #129

dguaraglia wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting. But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (…

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

Google has a patent on pagerank? If their algorithm was patented, it would be open for anyone to read and understand - just not to use. My understanding is their ranking is something they keep a closely guarded secret, and to apply for a patent on it would be silly.

Or was pagerank something they did early on and I'm mixing up two things.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#177

Post by shurane » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:21 PM UTC

flatline3 wrote: post #82

FaceKicker wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that just mean more money though? I'd agree that the analysis of the damages would get pretty fuzzy at best if you're trying to account for such factors, but it's still ultimately just a loss of money.

That's the problem -- how do you calculate the lifetime value of that? It's not just lost sales, it's a substantial shift in the position of a huge corporation. Here's another example -- Imagine how different things could be today if the AT&T lawsuits hadn't temporarily paralyzed the BSDs just as Linux was also emerging. I can't even begin to quantify the cost of what could have happened if the lawsuit hadn't been fi…

Can you tell some more detail about this AT&T lawsuit against BSD?

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#178

Post by eli » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:35 PM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #129

dguaraglia wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting. But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (…

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

Google's secret sauce has a lot less to do with page rankings and a lot more to do with how to do really cheap and efficient data processing.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#179

Post by josteink » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:41 PM UTC

Apple has clearly lost it. Whatever once made them cool and different is long gone and all that remains is a pseudo-legalese ganster, using its giant pool of money to hinder software development at the cost of everyone else.

You cannot be a software-developer and support this monster with your money. As a software developer there should be no way you can support this.

Apple is the SCO of this decade.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#180

Post by epo » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 4:04 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #48

Judge Koh was a Silicon Valley patent litigator from 2000-2008 before being appointed a judge. Makes me wonder what companies she represented.

This pathetic innuendo is typical of so much of contemporary American debate. If you have something to say, say it. This "makes me wonder" style is just a gutless, moronic attempt at mud slinging.