# Apple blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab tablets in Australia and Amazon App Store  in Germany



## editor (Aug 1, 2011)

I suspect that this sets a depressing pattern that's going to be repeated. 



> Apple Inc. won an agreement from Samsung Electronics Co. that the South Korean company won’t sell the newest version of its tablet computer in Australia until a patent lawsuit in the country is resolved.
> The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes 10 Apple patents, including the “look and feel,” and touchscreen technology of the iPad, Steven Burley, a lawyer for Apple, told Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett in Sydney yesterday. The Cupertino, California-based company sought an Australian injunction and also wants to stop Samsung from selling the tablet in other countries, Burley said without specifying where.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...samsung-from-selling-tablet-in-australia.html


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2011)

Jesus wept!

Like Apple ever had an original idea themselves.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2011)

And now they've blocked submissions to Amazon's Android Appstore in Germany. This is getting fucking ridiculous. 



> Apple filed a US lawsuit in March against Amazon’s Appstore arguing that it had trademarked the term “App Store”. That case hit a stumbling block last month when a judge denied Apple a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Amazon from using the term.
> 
> That case continues but, meanwhile, Apple has filed a lawsuit in Europe. As a result, Amazon has had to stop accepting new app admissions for its Appstore in Germany.
> In an email to developers Amazon said: “For the time being, we are not accepting new app submissions from developers located in Germany.”
> ...


----------



## teqniq (Aug 1, 2011)

Much as I like their OS their corporate policies suck, but I suspect you could say that about plenty of other businesses


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Much as I like their OS their corporate policies suck, but I suspect you could say that about plenty of other businesses


I'm sure they are, but I'm struggling to think of any other large consumer electronics corporates successfully blocking the sales of rival products on such dubious grounds, to be honest. 

I mean, look at this, FFS: http://www.wirefresh.com/apple-give-it-a-rest-with-this-app-store-legal-nonsense-ffs/


----------



## mrs quoad (Aug 1, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm sure they are, but I'm struggling to think of any other large consumer electronics corporates successfully blocking the sales of rival products on such dubious grounds, to be honest.
> 
> I mean, look at this, FFS: http://www.wirefresh.com/apple-give-it-a-rest-with-this-app-store-legal-nonsense-ffs/


 
I was going to mention the whole LG / PS3 thing earlier this year, but tbf that was on the grounds of rather more substantial patent infringements.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 1, 2011)

@editor tbh I was thinking in a wider sense but I see what you mean.

My take was 'yea they're cunts but compared to Monsanto...'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 1, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Much as I like their OS their corporate policies suck, but I suspect you could say that about plenty of other businesses


 
Indeed, this isn't really a surprise...


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2011)

mrs quoad said:


> I was going to mention the whole LG / PS3 thing earlier this year, but tbf that was on the grounds of rather more substantial patent infringements.


The LG/Sony spat was painful to watch as well, but the big difference there was that LG weren't trying to manipulate the patent system to completely ban the sales of a_ rival _product and, as you say, they seemed to have something approaching a genuine case.

This whole patent trolling bullshit sucks.


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

editor said:


> The LG/Sony spat was painful to watch as well, but the big difference there was that LG weren't trying to manipulate the patent system to completely ban the sales of a_ rival _product and, as you say, they seemed to have something approaching a genuine case.
> 
> This whole patent trolling bullshit sucks.


 
"Patent trolling" is properly used to refer to a company which exists only to buy up patents in order to enforce them (or threaten to do so) against third parties in order to make money.  It's not appropriate to use the term to refer to a company seeking to enforce its own IP.

I don't know the details of this case, but if Samsung has agreed to defer launch of its product then it seems very unlikely that Apple hasn't got an arguable case.  A company as big as Samsung wouldn't just roll over in the face of empty threats.

Like it or not, this is what the patent system is all about.  Patents are commercial weapons used to lever commercial advantage.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2011)

Winot said:


> I don't know the details of this case, but if Samsung has agreed to defer launch of its product then it seems very unlikely that Apple hasn't got an arguable case.  A company as big as Samsung wouldn't just roll over in the face of empty threats.


It's all about strategy. That's why Apple - like other companies indulging in this pathetic merry go round of bullshit - are electing to fight certain battles in certain territories. 

If they win there, the idea is that it bolsters their case in the US (as with the recent ludicrous German Amazon 'app store' action).

Samsung have said that they are now launching the tablet in Australia, btw.


----------



## elbows (Aug 2, 2011)

Winot said:


> "Patent trolling" is properly used to refer to a company which exists only to buy up patents in order to enforce them (or threaten to do so) against third parties in order to make money.  It's not appropriate to use the term to refer to a company seeking to enforce its own IP.


 
Indeed. Misuse of the term patent troll is unhelpful, since it conflates issues that stem from the cynical misuse of patents by people who make nothing, with the very real issues that exist with the concept of patents as they are intended to be used.

Personally I can see the point of trying to protect inventions, but the fast moving world of IT combined with patents creates a mess. I don't have any useful solutions.

As for the App Store stuff, thats a trademark issue, nothing to do with patent trolling. Trademarks also have a sensible purpose, and companies that have been granted a trademark are supposed to try to protect their mark, or run the risk of losing their trademark. In this case the simple solution would be not to have awarded them that trademark in the first place.


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> As for the App Store stuff, thats a trademark issue, nothing to do with patent trolling. Trademarks also have a sensible purpose, and companies that have been granted a trademark are supposed to try to protect their mark, or run the risk of losing their trademark. In this case the simple solution would be not to have awarded them that trademark in the first place.


 
I would guess that a UK court at least would hold the registration to be invalid.  The case referred to above is before the German courts, and in some parts of Germany the courts are very quick to granted a temporary injunction without needing to make out much of a case.  It remains to be seen whether a permanent injuction is granted.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> Indeed. Misuse of the term patent troll is unhelpful, since it conflates issues that stem from the cynical misuse of patents by people who make nothing, with the very real issues that exist with the concept of patents as they are intended to be used.


But you are aware that big corporates are now scrambling to buy up third party patents to then use against their rivals to extract licensing fees/nobble products? It adds up to the same thing really.

It's pretty much universally recognised that the US patent system is broken and the broken companies are exploiting it.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2011)

This piece sums up how ludicrous the system has become:


> Apple Patents Portrait-Landscape Flipping: the patent system is broken…
> http://gettys.wordpress.com/2011/07...ndscape-flipping-the-patent-system-is-broken/
> 
> and
> ...


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

Have you read the comments to the first link?  The patent claim is *not* just to screen flipping - it covers an interaction between touch screen interactions and screen flipping.  Specifically, the claim says:

"A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display and one or more accelerometers, displaying information on the touch screen display in a portrait view or a landscape view based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers; detecting a predetermined finger gesture on or near the touch screen display while the information is displayed in a first view, wherein the first view is one of the portrait view and the landscape view; in response to detecting the predetermined finger gesture, displaying the information in a second view and locking the display of information in the second view, wherein the second view is the other of the portrait view and the landscape view; and unlocking the display of information in the second view in response to a determination that the device is placed in an orientation where the second view matches an orientation of the display based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers."

A bit more complicated than the screen flipping shown in the YouTube video, no?


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

Here's a link to the patent.  It dates back to 2007.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2011)

Winot said:


> Have you read the comments to the first link?  The patent claim is *not* just to screen flipping - it covers an interaction between touch screen interactions and screen flipping.  Specifically, the claim says:
> 
> "A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display and one or more accelerometers, displaying information on the touch screen display in a portrait view or a landscape view based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers; detecting a predetermined finger gesture on or near the touch screen display while the information is displayed in a first view, wherein the first view is one of the portrait view and the landscape view; in response to detecting the predetermined finger gesture, displaying the information in a second view and locking the display of information in the second view, wherein the second view is the other of the portrait view and the landscape view; and unlocking the display of information in the second view in response to a determination that the device is placed in an orientation where the second view matches an orientation of the display based on an analysis of data received from the one or more accelerometers."
> 
> A bit more complicated than the screen flipping shown in the YouTube video, no?


It's fundamentally the same thing but in a smaller device. Camera displays  did the same thing long before Apple. 

Read the Slashdot comments to see if you think Apple have a real right to patent such an operation.


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

editor said:


> It's fundamentally the same thing but in a smaller device. Camera displays  did the same thing long before Apple.
> 
> Read the Slashdot comments to see if you think Apple have a real right to patent such an operation.


 
The Nokia N95 and/or the high-end SLRs?  I'm not familar with the technology so can't tell from the slashdot comments alone the strength of the argument.  Did those examples use a touch screen as well as accelerometers to affect screen orientation/locking in the specific way claimed?  

Look, I'm not arguing that Apple should have got its patent.  It's entirely possible that there is prior art that was missed and that the patent shouldn't have been granted - that happens.  However, that's not the same as the whole system being broken.  And better arguments can be made about the weaknesses in the system than those based on mistaken premises.


----------



## elbows (Aug 2, 2011)

editor said:


> But you are aware that big corporates are now scrambling to buy up third party patents to then use against their rivals to extract licensing fees/nobble products? It adds up to the same thing really.


 
I understand your point, but no, I don't see it as the same thing. I will reserve the term patent troll for those who don't make anything that uses the patents in question, which is quite different in my book. 

This is not to defend the likes of Apple, I don't like what is happening on this front. But I think it will be hard for corporations to stop themselves from doing this sort of thing when its considered the normal, legit use of patents. I would therefore favour some kind of reform to the system itself, rather than expecting a particular corporate entity to back off of their own accord.

Another reason I wish to keep various things on this front separate is because it can be hard to truly know which side caused the problems. Companies license technology from each other all the time, and we only hear about these things when agreement isn't reached, when disputes escalate. Without knowing more about the details of each sides position its hard to make a definitive judgement about who is being unreasonable.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 2, 2011)

The term troll is a joke this is business.


----------



## elbows (Aug 2, 2011)

I wouldn't go that far, since the sorts of companies that the term patent troll is normally applied to are businesses, but shabby ones that are looked down on because they aren't actually doing anything deemed to have any value to anyone but themselves in any way.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 2, 2011)

Nah this is business, this is what corporations do, they seek to make profit, dominate the market and smash their competition, unless there's a good reason to create rackets to keep a stranglehold on consumers. It's business.


----------



## elbows (Aug 2, 2011)

But Im not arguing against that, I am just saying that the label patent troll applies to businesses where that is their only function, where the patent stuff is pretty much their sole revenue stream and they don't have a market for actual products to dominate and protect at all. 

Patent systems seem to have a good deal of unfairness about them, and don't get me started on corporations, but its not a good idea to completely overlook the underlying justification for having intellectual property in the first place. At its heart, its a question of whether someone who invents something should have some special reward for being seen to invent it first. I find it hard to declare a simple personal judgement on this since it ties in with issues about property and profit in general, which cause far more epic ranting.

It seems to me that software patents are of more concern than hardware ones when it comes to IT, because in many ways the fancy hardware market is already largely the preserve of corporations, the little man doesn't get much of a look in, and if he does then he is likely to be using the core products of others and IP issues will likely already be included in the purchase price of these components. But with software, someone in their bedroom could knock up stuff themselves, only to find their plans crushed by IP issues. And in this realm we often see patent trolls causing bother more than corporations with products like Apple etc. Indeed Apple are presently attempting to defend their own devs from aggressive patent claims.

Plus in the grand scheme of things if Im going to get hot under the collar about patents, I should probably start with the issue of medicines, a matter of life & death which should really test the moral justifications of intellectual property.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 2, 2011)

Appears all this 'debate' is moot, Samsung are going ahead with the launch. Calling Apple's bluff, brave move.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> ..... Plus in the grand scheme of things if Im going to get hot under the collar about patents, I should probably start with the issue of medicines, a matter of life & death which should really test the moral justifications of intellectual property.



or seeds.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/352800-Organic-farmers-to-sue-Monsanto

(which is probably what got me started off on the line of thinking above)

/derail


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> It seems to me that software patents are of more concern than hardware ones when it comes to IT, because in many ways the fancy hardware market is already largely the preserve of corporations, the little man doesn't get much of a look in, and if he does then he is likely to be using the core products of others and IP issues will likely already be included in the purchase price of these components. But with software, someone in their bedroom could knock up stuff themselves, only to find their plans crushed by IP issues. And in this realm we often see patent trolls causing bother more than corporations with products like Apple etc. Indeed Apple are presently attempting to defend their own devs from aggressive patent claims.


 
This is quite a pessimistic view of the patent system - (disclosure) I am a patent attorney and we act for many individuals and small companies who successfully use the patent system to gain a foothold in the marketplace and/or raise investment to grow their business.  It's pretty rare for a business to be 'crushed' by IP issues ime.


----------



## elbows (Aug 2, 2011)

Well keep in mind that I was mostly talking about software patents, and I'm really not sure how much such things have tended to come into play in the UK. And I'm completely out of date as to how the issue of software patents has progressed in EU law.

In fact the sort of thing Im talking about might be more theoretical than real so far - it seems possible to imagine all sorts of software features and business processes being patented, and that if such patents were fully enforced then the kind of nightmare I suggested could happen pretty often. But maybe things haven't reached such a state of affairs, and maybe they never will? I don't know, what was the ending of the story to some of the more high-profile internet related cases of yesteryear, such as Amazons one-click buy thing, and prior to that I seem to recall BT thought they had a patent that might cover hyperlinks!? Lets see what happens with the Lodsys vs Apple developers stuff, for this seems like a pretty concrete example of a battle that has wider implications for those on the smaller end of the software business.

Perhaps 'crushed' was not the best description for what I was trying to describe. Should have spoken more along the lines of people being put off from trying in the first place due to fear & uncertainty about IP issues, especially where things are being attempted on such a small scale that money for patent lawyers is not available. But then I presume that the system has a standard mechanism for dealing with this stuff, namely that people often only show up on the patent radar if there is a notable amount of money involved, at which point they should be able to afford to give a cut to those who can weave their way around this system.


----------



## Winot (Aug 3, 2011)

elbows said:


> Well keep in mind that I was mostly talking about software patents, and I'm really not sure how much such things have tended to come into play in the UK. And I'm completely out of date as to how the issue of software patents has progressed in EU law.



This isn't my specialist area, but in general terms it's pretty difficult (though not impossible) to get software patents through to grant in Europe.  The position the European Patent Office takes is that the subject matter needs to have a 'technical effect' which goes beyond a computer program as such.  Although the legal test should be the same in the UK, in practice the UK Office is harder to convince in this area.  

Both are in contrast to the USPTO which doesn't have the same exclusions.  It's there that a lot of the WTF examples come from, and many date back to a time when the US Office was granting things it shouldn't have been granting - it has reined this in now and arguably there has been an over correction with rejection rates of 60-70%.



> In fact the sort of thing Im talking about might be more theoretical than real so far - it seems possible to imagine all sorts of software features and business processes being patented, and that if such patents were fully enforced then the kind of nightmare I suggested could happen pretty often. But maybe things haven't reached such a state of affairs, and maybe they never will? I don't know, what was the ending of the story to some of the more high-profile internet related cases of yesteryear, such as Amazons one-click buy thing, and prior to that I seem to recall BT thought they had a patent that might cover hyperlinks!? Lets see what happens with the Lodsys vs Apple developers stuff, for this seems like a pretty concrete example of a battle that has wider implications for those on the smaller end of the software business.



Not sure about this.



> Perhaps 'crushed' was not the best description for what I was trying to describe. Should have spoken more along the lines of people being put off from trying in the first place due to fear & uncertainty about IP issues, especially where things are being attempted on such a small scale that money for patent lawyers is not available.



But we're great value!



> But then I presume that the system has a standard mechanism for dealing with this stuff, namely that people often only show up on the patent radar if there is a notable amount of money involved, at which point they should be able to afford to give a cut to those who can weave their way around this system.


 
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2011)

And so it goes on, with a new patent bidding war between Samsung, Apple and Google. 



> Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s second-largest maker of mobile phones, is examining InterDigital Inc.’s patent portfolio after being approached to make a bid, according to two people familiar with the matter.
> 
> Samsung is looking at the patents along with Apple Inc. (AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG) and other potential bidders, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. InterDigital, which holds patents related to mobile technologies used to transfer information, said last month that it hired bankers as it considers a sale.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2011)

Excellent post by Google:



> I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on. Here is what’s happening:
> 
> Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers. Android and other platforms are competing hard against each other, and that’s yielding cool new devices and amazing mobile apps for consumers.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 4, 2011)

Poor old Google eh.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Poor old Google eh.


Poor old consumers, actually. They're paying for all this bullshit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 4, 2011)

The point being that Google are buying up patents as fast as anyone else; this "anti-competitive strategy" stuff is nonsense. They're a willing participant in the whole system.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2011)

I'm not sure your opinion actually chimes with what's actually currently going on.


----------



## pk (Aug 4, 2011)

editor said:


> I'm not sure your opinion actually chimes with what's actually currently going on.


 
FM is absolutely right. This is about lawyers throttling the market, not products becoming more expensive. It's VHS versus Betamax all over again.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Aug 4, 2011)

Once again John Gruber makes some good points regarding Google chucking it's toys out of the pram.



> So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK. But when others acquired them, it’s a “hostile, organized campaign”. It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?



And regarding the Norton patent portfolio:



> Then when the auction actually started, it’s OK for Google to bid over $3.14 billion, but when Apple and Microsoft bid $4.5 billion, that’s “way beyond what they’re really worth”. And if these patents are “bogus”, why was Google willing to pay anything for them, let alone pi billion dollars?
> 
> No one other than Nathan Myhrvold and his cronies sees the U.S. patent system as functioning properly, but Google’s hypocrisy here is absurd. Google isn’t arguing against a handful of never-should-have-been-issued software patents. They’re not arguing against patent trolls like Myhrvold and his shell companies like Lodsys — companies that have no products of their own, no actual inventions, just patents for ideas for products. They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors. It’s not “patents” that are attacking Android. It’s competing companies whose patents Google has violated — and whose business Android undermines — who are attacking Android.
> 
> ...



link


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 4, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Poor old Google eh.


 
Yep it's funny when people with no corporate power have questioned their business practice they've been told to just trust Google and yet when they have a real opponent they cry foul...laughable business leadership!


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2011)

pk said:


> FM is absolutely right. This is about lawyers throttling the market, not products becoming more expensive. It's VHS versus Betamax all over again.


Who do you think pays for these lawyers and the spurious licensing fees hoisted on to products?


----------



## WWWeed (Aug 4, 2011)

From what I can tell apple and M$ are bricking it beacuse they are not experiencing the same level of growth as the android platform as a whole. I wouldn't go so far to say these patent claims are a last ditch attempt to try and slow growth of the android platform, but it certainly looks that way. One of apples claims against HTC involves turning a URL or other recognizable text into a clickable link (i.e a hyperlink) which in my opinion is part of the HTML mindset and bugger all to do with HTC or apple owning the IP on that idea.

This article sums up my suspicions nicely: http://www.osnews.com/story/24996/Illustrated_Apple_s_Fear_of_Android

If those figures are to be believed then almost 70% of Apple's revenue in the past quarter has come from the iPhone and the iPad. Comparing the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2011 Samsung saw its smartphone marketshare increase from 3% to 13%, HTC jumped from 6% to 10%, Nokia went from 40% to 24%, and Apple only went from 16% to 19%.

If you group all of the android Open Handset Alliance manufactures together (i.e acer, asus, dell, Huawei, LG, HTC, Samsung, ZTE, and the rest) they have a marketshare that is growing faster than anyone else. Patents and licensing fees are a good way of stopping the android platform from growing at the speed it currently is.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2011)

You've just reposted what Editor posted yesterday.


----------



## WWWeed (Aug 4, 2011)

Kanda said:


> You've just reposted what Editor posted yesterday.


 
yeah your right I'll edit it out. I read the thread the other day and just skimmed it today!

I promise I'll read the thread before posting in future!


----------



## elbows (Aug 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Who do you think pays for these lawyers and the spurious licensing fees hoisted on to products?


 
Having higher costs does not necessarily mean you can charge more for your products, if the customers don't feel like paying more or the established price for such gadgets is already set, especially if competition is fierce. Under such circumstances either they will find the additional revenue by charging more for other products, or they may find the money elsewhere, e.g. by taking it from a pot that would have gone to employees or shareholders. In the case of Apple, they have a very large pot of money from past sales, they have already been charging their customers a premium which far exceeds their costs, overheads etc, so they are unlikely to need to change their customers even more to cover patent battles.

Who decides whether these are 'spurious' licensing fees? There are some examples which seem pretty easy to put into this category, but many that do not, and there is potential for judgements regarding this stuff to be affected by our existing opinions about the corporations involved.

As for Google, their whole model is different, we are the product that is sold. In most areas of their business we are the user, but not the customer. So we won't pay directly if their costs go up.

From a consumer point of view, the most obvious threat is that a loss of choice affects us and could drive up prices over time. But that'l only come to fruition if patents really do crush the competition, and often they do not, corporations argue about amounts and play hard, and other corporations usually come to terms with this stuff in the end and cough up.


----------



## elbows (Aug 4, 2011)

WWWeed said:


> If you group all of the android Open Handset Alliance manufactures together (i.e acer, asus, dell, Huawei, LG, HTC, Samsung, ZTE, and the rest) they have a marketshare that is growing faster than anyone else. Patents and licensing fees are a good way of stopping the android platform from growing at the speed it currently is.


 
But are they really a good way to achieve this? Some big decisions that went a certain way would have some affect, but Im not sure we'll actually see many of those, and at this point its hard to see Android market share being much affected by this stuff. Certainly when it comes to tablets at this point, its the product thats holding things back, not intellectual property issues.


----------



## elbows (Aug 4, 2011)

Also I have very little sympathy with Google over this, they decided to try to wipe out the competition by giving their mobile OS away for free, and they should have been fully aware of patent issues when they decided to peruse this strategy. 

Don't get me wrong, if it were down to me I would be trying to design a new system to deal with these sorts of IP issues, but no entities involved in the current scene should act surprised or hard done by when patent business as usual bites them on the ass. There are no heroes in this, and certainly not Google.


----------



## WWWeed (Aug 4, 2011)

elbows said:


> But are they really a good way to achieve this? Some big decisions that went a certain way would have some affect, but Im not sure we'll actually see many of those, and at this point its hard to see Android market share being much affected by this stuff. Certainly when it comes to tablets at this point, its the product thats holding things back, not intellectual property issues.



Ok maybe its not a good way of going about it, but short of product sales I don't see what else can be done.



elbows said:


> Also I have very little sympathy with Google over this, they decided to try to wipe out the competition by giving their mobile OS away for free, and they should have been fully aware of patent issues when they decided to peruse this strategy.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, if it were down to me I would be trying to design a new system to deal with these sorts of IP issues, but no entities involved in the current scene should act surprised or hard done by when patent business as usual bites them on the ass. There are no heroes in this, and certainly not Google.


 
Its how goggle does business, just look at gmail for instance. Its free to use but it isnt free in that they get a lot of your personal data from it to sell.

Its also going to be interesting to see how the firefox mobile os is going to come along, beacuse that is meant to be truly open: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/fir...ing-up-a-mobile-os-to-rival-android-50004537/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 5, 2011)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> Having higher costs does not necessarily mean you can charge more for your products, if the customers don't feel like paying more or the established price for such gadgets is already set, especially if competition is fierce. Under such circumstances either they will find the additional revenue by charging more for other products, or they may find the money elsewhere, e.g. by taking it from a pot that would have gone to employees or shareholders. In the case of Apple, they have a very large pot of money from past sales, they have already been charging their customers a premium which far exceeds their costs, overheads etc, so they are unlikely to need to change their customers even more to cover patent battles.
> 
> Who decides whether these are 'spurious' licensing fees? There are some examples which seem pretty easy to put into this category, but many that do not, and there is potential for judgements regarding this stuff to be affected by our existing opinions about the corporations involved.
> 
> ...


 
Glad this is getting said, kinds tired of the whole Google stuff is free, it's not. We're the product when we use them.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 5, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


>


 
Lol!


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2011)

Apple lost their shitty case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15956275


----------



## Winot (Nov 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Apple lost their shitty case.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15956275



It sounds like this is the decision in relation to the preliminary injunction, not the substantive decision as to whether or not Samsung infringed.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 30, 2011)

Yup this one still has a ways to go...


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2012)

FFS Apple. Give it a rest.  


> German court rejects Apple bid to ban Galaxy phone, tablet
> Apple's attempt to keep Samsung from selling its Galaxy 10.1N tablet and Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the country was rejected today.
> "Samsung has shown that it is more likely than not that the patent will be revoked because of a technology that was already on the market before the intellectual property had been filed for protection," said Munich Regional Court Judge Andreas Mueller, according to Bloomberg...
> 
> ...


----------



## c01642 (Feb 3, 2012)

Motorola have now blocked icloud in germany so apple have pulled iPhoness from their stores over there.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/03/motorola-wins-permanent-injunction-against-apples-icloud-in-ger/


----------

