Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong with this picture. What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minute…
If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation. Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.
I don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti-Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.
This isn't a corrupt country (there is a specific list of corrupt countries, this is a pretty objective statement.) It makes 0 sense for you to post "how far you got" as you didn't get anywhere.
The fact that a country as a whole is relatively non corrupt doesn't say anything about specific people and their corruptibility. Also, the U.S.A. is number 24 of around 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index and appears below countries such as Bahamas, Chile or Qatar.
I mean that it's unheard-of for judges to be literally bribed as this implies. This guy is posting his research digging things up - a very interesting read: if he had found anything!
But he didn't. The steps he took are worthless and don't deserve so much as a mention. This would be like me googling your username and some illegal activity, finding that I couldn't find your username on any forums dedicated to that illegal activity, "but still." Come on. The steps I took are worthless and aren't worth mentioning.
If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation. Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.
I don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti-Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.
It's almost as though the findings are not a random glitch.
Have you considered that while for huge conglomerates such as Samsung and companies like Apple this is a mere game for their law departments, it's much more serious for the small developer? Big corporations could pretty much shut down any start up if they wanted to. The reverse is not true. Could Panic Software have sued Apple because of the Audion / iTunes story? So what good is the patent law if it only benefits th…
I don't know if Panic had any patents regarding this. The patent system doesn't really benefit the small developer. I was listening to Build & Analyze and Marco Arment was asked if he would patent features of Instapaper and he essentially said that it is more pain than it's worth. They don't have time time and money required to enforce it.
Yes. I'd prefer to just leave the post at that, but to make a bit more of a contribution to discussion, fiduciary duty is a myth invented sometime in the 70s or 80s. No one has ever been sued for not maximizing the profits of the company the run. A corporation doesn't have to be evil, even if being evil were more profitable than being good. They can just choose to be less profitable and no one cares. Given the choice…
I wish your statement about fiduciary duty were true. It's not a recent concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company “The Court held that a business corporation is organized primarily for the profit of the stockholders, as opposed to the community or its employees. The discretion of the directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to the reduction of…
Clearly not current law in California, or Apple itself would have started to distribute its $100 billion cash hoard as dividends under Jobs, instead of just letting it pile up. (Tim Cook announced this spring that he'd be giving out half of the money in dividends and stock repurchases, but he wasn't under any legal pressure to do so.)
Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious. It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong with this picture. What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I spent a few minute…
If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation. Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to be involved in any such mess.
There's a valid point in his statement. Its just that you haven't thought about it deeply yet. A dozen OEM's including HTC, Samsung and the rest, have about a 50 phone models in total (assume 50 for simplicity). Atleast one phone model from these OEM's is under litigation and/or have been banned w.r.t patents. Apple, is a single company with just 2-3 phones and NONE of these phones have been banned yet. This must mean 1) ALL the phones, with various flavors of Android are some how violating Apple's patents OR there is something unfair happening here. The possibility of about 50 (remember, we're assuming 50 is for simplicity) phone models violating a single company's patents is just ridiculous. This must mean these makers of these 50+ phone models haven't thought about these patents OR it clearly means something unfair is happening. To assume, these WELL-EXPERIENCED (Eg: HTC) Phone makers of these 50+ models haven't thought about these patents is plain stupidity, which leads us to the conclusion, there's something unfair going on.
I extremely disagree with you, a boycott is the perfect weapon again a big brand like apple. People just tell others about it, and it's just really bad for their image.
The average person doesn't care. I'm in this industry and I barely care. Watching Google and Apple is like watching NBA players scuffling over the last bottle of champagne. The average person just wants to use their phone, update their Facebook and find out what Snooki is up too. A boycot organized on a site that the muggles have barely heard of over an issue that they don't give two shits about isn't going to affect…
I would have said that the most targeted audience (of a petition) IS the average person. Who is flooded by choice and will take a bad image into account when deciding what to buy.
Us techies we tend to be more selfish and buy what we need more than what is trendy, what is not etc...
I disagree on the offensive party part - in Feb 2012, Google/Motorola used a pager-era patent to get an injunction against multiple Apple devices[1] in Germany. Apple had to disable iCloud push email feature to get their products back on shelf. [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/02/apple-faces-double-wham...
How is Apple not an offensive party? Has Apple not sued Android based device makers before feb 2012? Is Google/Motorola suing any party that has not first sued them or any of their partners for doing bussiness with Google?
Didn't Apple start suing Android OEMs first? If I remember correctly, there was a mutual destruction pact before then.
No, check the timeline history. Apple did not start this. The smartphone incumbents did, after Apple started eating all the profits.
Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).