81–90 of 203 posts
Judge Koh was a Silicon Valley patent litigator from 2000-2008 before being appointed a judge. Makes me wonder what companies she represented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is irreparable harm considering they can't get back the monopoly/leading market-share effect at this very young stage of the tablet market. i.e. Sales and profits now is a lot more important than Sales and Money later.
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.
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 filed by AT&T.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's unfortunate that taligent has been downvoted into the negatives, because he (or she) is correct. How much is market leadership worth? How big of a check would Apple have to write RIM to restore their market advantage? How big of a check would Apple have to write Nokia to put them back where they were in the marketplace 4 years ago? I'd argue that there is no check large enough to restore a lost market ad…
Shouldn't the plaintiff though be the one to take on that risk? If the damage of losing market share is truly irreparable, then the court would be doing irreparable harm to Samsung on the basis of Apple's unproven allegations.
I'm starting to hate Apple more and more. Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition? I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they stop acting like this.
I completely agree with you ars, Apple is getting totally out of hand. They are becoming what Microsoft was in the 90's and it absolutely sickens me. Consumers have the right to choose what products they want to buy. I have been slowly switching away from the Apple products I own. And this just reaffirms that I will never buy another Apple product.
You might notice all of your friends who were liberal and poor in their 20's start voting conservative in their 40's once they have material wealth to protect - "less taxes! less government!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM Simon(1993/4) also had the same functionality[0]. Also, it seems that their main patent(8,086,604[1]) for this case describe a metasearch engine, something that have been around at least since the mid 90s(long before the patent was filled in 2004). [0] http://youtu.be/wnFsJ9z_caY?t=1m57s (warning: terrible video quality ahead) [1] http://goo.gl/jjG1P
Is this kind of stuff not brought up in court? How can you possibly patent something that already existed?
So you can file any bogus patent, the USPTO won't verify. They'll only check if all the paperwork is in order. It will only matter if your patents are bogus if someone tries to invalidate it.
Or am I talking crap? Please correct me where I'm wrong, I'd love to learn more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM Simon(1993/4) also had the same functionality[0]. Also, it seems that their main patent(8,086,604[1]) for this case describe a metasearch engine, something that have been around at least since the mid 90s(long before the patent was filled in 2004). [0] http://youtu.be/wnFsJ9z_caY?t=1m57s (warning: terrible video quality ahead) [1] http://goo.gl/jjG1P
Is this kind of stuff not brought up in court? How can you possibly patent something that already existed?
>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…
Is this from reading the claims, or from reading the introduction (whatever that's called)?
Apple is implicitly admitting Samsung is a huge threat to them. Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a…
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 new iPhone (despite not having true 4G) and not suffer significantly in the long term. It's not a good idea, but I bet they could.
It's a bizarre and clumsy piece of corporate-speak. Money can't make one whole. It could set things right, though.
There is no abuse of the law, there is law, and there is not law. Using the law is not an abuse, regardless of what it may seem from the cheap seats where we are all sitting. If you don't like it, fix the laws.
Using the patent system to browbeat your competitors out of business by wielding bullshit imaginary software patents does not promote the progress of anything but Apple's business.
Therefore, it is clearly an abuse of the law.