341–350 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Apple is a business, it doesn't exist for altruistic reasons." While true in a strictly short term sense, not being "nice" is the sort of thing that erodes your brand image. One too many of these sorts of stories stick in a consumers head to create a generally negative image, which can be extremely hard to reverse (see Scoda). And for a luxury company like Apple, brand image is everything.
So it's ok for Google to lie and steal? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/google-caught-pil... A far, far worse abuse of trust wouldn't you say? as was a serving member of a board of directors not initially declaring a conflict of interest. This will be, as we say in the UK, tomorrows fish and chip paper.
First, you're conveniently omitting the part where Google apologized and fired the people involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/30/google-moca...
Second, as for Eric Schmidt not disclosing his conflict-of-interest, it's not like the Android acquisition (and its relationship to Google's mobile ambitions) was some deep, dark secret (like the iPhone was): http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb
And that was public over a year before Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric...
It seems to me that if anyone had the responsibility of keeping Schmidt off of the Apple board because of a conflict-of-interest between Android and the iPhone, it was Apple.
Now its trending on Twitter (at least it shows up on my twitter home page trend as number 7, but these trends change very very quickly). Its still trending on Google plus after 2.5 days. This is going pretty viral. I so wish that this will put some sense into judge and Apple to not ban Galaxy Nexus - a unlock hardware phone which is made for developers, hackers and has pure AOSP experience.
Or possibly it will put some sense into Samsung to stop infringing on patents...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple Legal is at odds with Apple Engineering, trying to litigate away the competition instead of innovating past them I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate? "Accept EULA to unlock?" They aren't at odds with engineering any more than having a good defense is at odds with having a good offense. Have you used an up-to-date android phone in the last 6 months? Perhaps even gotten to play with an Nexu…
> Is this particular patent valid? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter. Are you shitting me ??? They just got two of their competitors' flagship products banned from sale over that bullshit patent, which will likely take years to invalidate. What on earth makes you think it "doesn't matter"?
I'm wondering what kind of institutional respect for IP and spirit of innovation would lead Samsung to whip up this UI? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjXozc Sure, one can argue that Samsung and Apple both look to a common ancestor for their ideas, but I think Samsung is more insidious than people are willing to admit here.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the most recent injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. The judge issued the injunction on the strength of U.S. Patent 8,086,604, which "provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different t…
If you don't like how the game is played you have to fix the rules. You can't expect companies like Apple to just take this blatant rip off lying down because there is no way to sue for what was actually done wrong.
This is really a non-issue. Tech companies sue each other and get import bans all the time. The victim eventually moves some UI widget three pixels to the right and the import ban is lifted and life moves on. The only real consequence of all this is that lawyers on both sides make a lot of money. Google is not going to stop making Android and Apple is not going to stop making iOS. Both will just advance more slowly b…
I think suggesting that nobody is hurt by ridiculous injunctions like this is a bit disingenuous. Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do. Something else an injuction does is robs a manufacturer of any time-to-market advantage that they may have had releasing the produ…
What kind of ridiculous justification is this? "But I had the car! It was ready to sell! I had someone who wanted to buy it! It's not right to stop me just because the car didn't actually belong to me, the guy I stole it from doesn't even know it's gone!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Apple should pay. And I question whether anyone else should, either. These "standards-essential" patents are under RAND terms because to do otherwise devalues the patent and provides incentive for the standard to "work around" the patent. If Motorola wants revenue from that patent, they must license it under RAND terms. But now that there is significant investment in the infrastructure that uses these s…
Rather than having this ambiguous FRAND principle, standards bodies should require that companies that want their patents included in a standard hand over these patents to a patent pool in return for a shareholding in that pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is completely reasonable to investigate bribery where there is a perceived unreasonable decision and a heavy financial motive. Individuals working at large companies do bribe people in a variety of situations. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/business/wal-mart-bribery-...
Okay. Let me qualify my point. I find it hard to believe such a high profile bribery can happen in the US (the article you have posted is a case of bribery by an American company in Mexico). And given Apple's profile and a lot of entities already pursuing their case (ex: NYT's iEconomy series), they would never do such a big blunder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying it does. I'm saying Samsung has no shame in copying this closely.
Neither did Steve Jobs. What's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But might it be seen by the average potential Apple employee? It's structured as "don't buy from apple", but it also covers "don't work for apple", which they actually need to fear.