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

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#181

Post by chimeracoder »

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.

> Indeed. Source code is speech, and speech cannot infringe patents. (Not saying this is logical, that's just what the case law says.)

Are you sure about this? So I could write any patent-infringing code I want, distribute source-only (or even write it in a purely interpreted language) and then nobody can complain that I've violated any of their patents?

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#182

Post by epo »

chj wrote: post #38

What A Patent Hell. FYI: The patents held against Android: 1. A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked 2. A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data. 3. A slide to unlock feature. 4. An autocorrect-type function that completes the word as a user types and allows the user to accept…

That is not the wording of the patents so your post is nonsense.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#183

Post by jfoutz »

ericdykstra wrote: post #40

Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple the company because of this? It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology (in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of copycat-like activity). Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing…

It makes me happy. They're beginning their transition away from being a tech company to being IBM. 100 million is a drop in their bucket full of cash. However, 100 million is a few insanely great engineers and a product they're never going to build. because they're starting to move away from the "just be better" method of making stuff.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#184

Post by superchink »

kenster07 wrote: post #138
MBCook wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to be a huge threat to be worth squeezing money out of. Huge threat? I don't think so. Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important. But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a year off from releasing a ne…

m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales-profit?cat=technology&type=article

TL;DR:

“Yet Apple's iPhone and iPad business remains more lucrative. The Cupertino, California-based company earned $11.6bn (£7.2bn) in the January-March quarter, more than twice as much as Samsung, even though its revenue was about 10% less.”

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#185

Post by mharmon14 »

Irreparable harm seems to imply that this could hurt Apple in a major way.

But it's easy to see what game-changing technology is. Look at what people want in a phone:

http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts-wit...

There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include "search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.

It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift in market share or something with similarly unascertainable consequences, which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#186

Post by gergles »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #89

Slightly unrelated question: where does this "make you whole" language come from? It seems to be cropping up more and more recently, but I hadn't heard it before about 2 years ago. Perhaps it's a term of art that I just didn't know about? It's a bizarre and clumsy piece of corporate-speak. Money can't make one whole. It could set things right, though.

It's a legal term of art. Search around for the "make-whole doctrine".

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#187

Post by flatline3 »

shurane wrote: post #177
flatline3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

This stalled BSD development/adoption for 2 years while the legal status was in question.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#188

Post by Tloewald »

dguaraglia wrote: post #127
Tloewald wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that a patent is a deliberately created, temporary monopoly.

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 (…

But what you said was that the constitution was supposed to break monopolies. No it wasn't.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#189

Post by jvm »

flatline3 wrote: post #77
jvm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If Samsung gobbles up market share, a big check won't bring that back...

This is just the point I'm trying to make. Apple doesn't want market share, so they don't care if it goes away for its own, sake, they care if it goes away if they lose money. That market share has a cash value to Apple that the jury could award them if they win their case.

> my family already starved.

Yes, exactly, that is irreperable harm. Whereas in this case, nobody is starving. Apple is losing some finite amount of money, and some finite potential for future earnings, which they are suing Samsung for and could be awarded in damages if the jury sides with them.

In the limit, imagine Samsung stole the whole market from Apple. The jury could award Apple the total market value of Samsung. That would literally be the value of whatever market share Samsung had "stolen" from them.

Unlike life, market share has a finite cash value.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#190

Post by jvm »

chacham15 wrote: post #133
jellicle wrote: post #2

>According to Judge Koh, “Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm” in its argument against Samsung and the Galaxy Nexus, because of “long-term loss of market share” along with “losses of downstream sales.” This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are celebrating tonight. EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge may issue an injunction fo…

Your exact claim has been taken into account, just the opposite direction: "Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."

Oh wow, interesting! Although of course if this really has such a definable cash value, why can't that just be part of the award if Samsung loses?
Post reply on HN