291–300 of 372 posts
What a joke! The jury rushed through this so quickly and uncaringly that there are glaring errors in their verdict. Look at the edit at the bottom of the article: http://briefmobile.com/jury-comes-to-verdict-in-apple-vs-sam...
All Apple does is whine. Even when they are winning.
Their internal memo/public statement goes so far as to say "it's not about patents and money". Yes, I do believe you Mr. Cook. It's about a bunch of morally inept emotionally underdeveloped overgrown children.
Apple is above "copying". Went they want to cut corners (pun intended) and get to market quickly, they _steal_.
Welcome to the IT industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't. It only seems to because people on HN, reddit, etc, don't know how to read patent claims.
Ah yes, that old canard. "No time to explain, but you're wrong." Please feel free to respond to my post and tell me exactly how I misinterpreted that claim.
Seriously, though, people on HN, etc, read claims far more broadly than a court would. They tend to see "rubber band effect" and think Apple patented all rubber band effects.
Claims start out broadly, and are narrowed by additional elements of the claim. "A rubber band effect THAT: a)... b)... c)..." You can't just ignore (a), (b), (c) because they narrow the boundaries of the claimed invention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. You're forgetting about the Newton.
Right, any computer with square icons arranged in a table format must have originated from the Newton. How could anybody have figured out to put icons into rows and columns? But seriously, Palm had an SDK and a phone with a touch interface and downloadable apps a good three to four years before the iPhone was introduced. Any brick with a touch interface does not fall into that category I'm afraid.
If you want to argue about who had specific features first, Newton will usually win - PalmOS was stripped-down to be cheap and dependent on the PC it docked to whereas Newton was conceived as a standalone device so Newton could do things like print or send and receive a fax from day one - Palm got most of those features later if at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of comment is what you get when you have non-lawyers try to interpret patent litigation...
Nice. Maybe you want to read this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101
So lets look at some of the infringing patents that the news articles are quoting... 381 patent: "rubber band" effect where a page "bounces" when a user scrolls to the bottom I personally had written JS bounce-back product picture slide-shows for a shopping cart in 2003/2004 using the horrible browser APIs of that era...wish I had patented that..1 billion..yum. I am quite certain hundreds of people have coded bounce-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the market has punished [Apple] for it You're serious? They take 73% of the profit in smartphone market, with Samsung at the second place (26%) and HTC, third (1%), their stock is booming, they have more money in the bank than all of their competitors combined (they can buy Samsung, HTC and Dell and shut them down and still have a few billion dollars left). I'd call that reward, not punishment. http://www.asymco.co…
This is what I don't get: people applaud Apple for their massive profit margins when in reality it just shows how they're screwing the consumer. Does nobody care about the betterment of the general public -us!?- around here? By buying products with huge profit margins you're spending money on features that you're not getting. And THAT is why I refuse to buy Apple products.
By buying products with large profit margins you're sending a message that you want the company to stay in business and grow and keep doing what it's doing.
> By buying products with huge profit margins you're spending money on features that you're not getting.
No, part of what makes Apple so valuable is that they resist adding more "features" than the bare minimum, in favor of trying to preserve their best feature: simplicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the global market where android now has 60 something percent market share and iPhones have 18.
That global market is mostly made up people who would never become Apple customers. Apple really doesn't target poor people; Android does.
a lot of people like to talk about "android fragmentation". while the variety of devices out there can sometimes be annoying as a consumer and developer, i tend to think of it as "android diversity" instead.
to me, it's wonderful that your so-called "poor people", who may not even have a regular computer and for whom the "premium" experience that apple is not an option, still have an opportunity to participate in the "modern world". even if it's with a device that gearheads would turn their noses up at.
technology liberates, informs, and elevates people. the fact that the android ecosystem is flexible enough to accommodate a huge demographic is a strength, in my mind, and not a weakness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make an assertion about future ctions by Apple as if it was fact. I tend to think Apple was particularly butt-hurt specifically over the trade dress stuff (rightfully so IMO). Why would this ruling lead to other flavours of Android being targetted so intensely?
Read Jobs' comments about going nuclear on Android and you can see this is just an execution of a strategy he set in place. If there are no more suits by Apple against Android vendors in the next year I will buy you a case of beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I don't get: people applaud Apple for their massive profit margins when in reality it just shows how they're screwing the consumer. Does nobody care about the betterment of the general public -us!?- around here? By buying products with huge profit margins you're spending money on features that you're not getting. And THAT is why I refuse to buy Apple products.
Trade is generally a positive-sum game. The fact that the producer makes a profit means there is a producer surplus but the fact that consumers buy it means there is a consumer surplus too. The general public thinks iPhones are worth more than what Apple is charging, so they buy it. By buying products with large profit margins you're sending a message that you want the company to stay in business and grow and keep do…
I don't mean to imply Apple products are overpriced in general. I mostly just prefer to discount/devalue marketing when making decisions on what to buy, and instead focus on the features that are important to me.