# Apple are at it again.



## ChrisC (Jun 6, 2012)

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple...dds-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-suit-against-samsung

Oh fuck off Apple. Don't you like healthy competition? If things are so bad Apple, you had better up your game then. This patent war is not doing you any favours.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2012)

dastards *shakes fist farnsworth*


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2012)

It's gone beyond a joke now. Apple can't compete on innovation so all they can do is try and block the competition by running off to the courts to get products banned on frivolous grounds.


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2012)

And now: Apple wants all new HTC Android phones barred from U.S.


----------



## ChrisC (Jun 7, 2012)

I reckon Steve Jobs would be turning in his grave. I'm sure he would not want Apple to conduct themselves in this manner. If they want to up there game. Then they should start looking at giving it's users a bit more freedom of choice. Proprietary stuff just doesn't cut it anymore. I mean there is a place for it, but it needs to be managed better.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jun 7, 2012)

ChrisC said:


> I reckon Steve Jobs would be turning in his grave. I'm sure he would not want Apple to conduct themselves in this manner. If they want to up there game. Then they should start looking at giving it's users a bit more freedom of choice. Proprietary stuff just doesn't cut it anymore. I mean there is a place for it, but it needs to be managed better.


Personally I think this is Mr. Job's legacy. And I'm a dyed in the wool apple user


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2012)

Steve Jobs was the driving force behind Apple's litigiousness.


----------



## ChrisC (Jun 7, 2012)

Really!? He seemed pretty level headed to me. Never knew it was him that started all this silly business. I know he said he would destroy Android. To me that was just business talk. A little word of challenge his rivals. If it was to be taken literally then I stand corrected.


----------



## grit (Jun 7, 2012)

editor said:


> Steve Jobs was the driving force behind Apple's litigiousness.


 
His shareholders are very very thankful.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

grit said:


> His shareholders are very very thankful.


Charities and worthy causes aren't so chuffed though.


----------



## elbows (Jun 8, 2012)

ChrisC said:


> Really!? He seemed pretty level headed to me.


 
He didn't get where he was by being level headed exactly, he was a particular kind of driven individual that was anything but, at least for several key portions of his career. Crying when you don't get the first company employee number 1 name badge, calming yourself by putting your feet in the toilet, fretting over so many details, taking things personally.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

elbows said:


> He didn't get where he was by being level headed exactly, he was a particular kind of driven individual that was anything but, at least for several key portions of his career. Crying when you don't get the first company employee number 1 name badge, calming yourself by putting your feet in the toilet, fretting over so many details, taking things personally.


 One of the first things that Jobs cut when he returned to Apple in 1997 was the company's philanthropic programme, which was never reinstated.
Awful man.


----------



## Ax^ (Jun 8, 2012)

has the apple backlash started



*blames the iphone4s*


----------



## Sunray (Jun 8, 2012)

I am always interested in why people moan on here so much.  Its not like Apple are a patent troll are they, they actually create new ideas and products.  How would you protect your ideas exactly?  If you created something new that was set to make you millions and loads of other companies blatantly ripped you off, how would you protect your idea?


----------



## maldwyn (Jun 8, 2012)

iphone5 will be an android wrapped in an Apple shell, fact.







there's no escaping the patent wars


----------



## grit (Jun 8, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> has the apple backlash started
> 
> 
> 
> *blames the iphone4s*


 
Sunray just threw a match, this is where I get off


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jun 8, 2012)

Steve Jobs was like one of these new TV steries that keep cropping up now. Instead of a tough uncompromising copper that solves crimes, how about a tough uncompromising copper that solves crimes but has tourettes, yeah, and OCD. Oh and incontinence, and a deep dislike of pigeons.
*Steve jobs is the director. He manages a company that makes asthetically pleasing products that people want to buy. But yeah also, he is tough and uncompromising, and really fucking weird. And an utter douchebag, but he likes Budda yeah, and he always wears polo necks. And he has Ocd.*


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

Sunray said:


> I am always interested in why people moan on here so much. Its not like Apple are a patent troll are they, they actually create new ideas and products. How would you protect your ideas exactly? If you created something new that was set to make you millions and loads of other companies blatantly ripped you off, how would you protect your idea?


Have you seen the trivial things that Apple tries to get their products banned for? Have you ever wondered why so many of their recent attempts have been thrown out of court, despite their vast wealth and ability to hire the best lawyers on the planet?


----------



## Sunray (Jun 8, 2012)

editor said:


> Have you seen the trivial things that Apple tries to get their products banned for? Have you ever wondered why so many of their recent attempts have been thrown out of court, despite their vast wealth and ability to hire the best lawyers on the planet?


 
This isn't answering the question I posed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sunray said:


> I am always interested in why people moan on here so much.  Its not like Apple are a patent troll are they, they actually create new ideas and products.  How would you protect your ideas exactly?  If you created something new that was set to make you millions and loads of other companies blatantly ripped you off, how would you protect your idea?



Funny though, i recall Archos producing tablets before Apple did. This is like Cowell moaning that The Voice is ripping off the X Factor and failing to remember that Pop Idol was first, which he himself copied.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

Sunray said:


> This isn't answering the question I posed.


They claim to invented all sorts of things, but more often that not these days the courts don't seem inclined to agree.

Rounded corners and a flat screen anyone?


----------



## Sunray (Jun 8, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Funny though, i recall Archos producing tablets before Apple did. This is like Cowell moaning that The Voice is ripping off the X Factor and failing to remember that Pop Idol was first, which he himself copied.


 
Do not forget the Newton, which is a fairly impressive gadget of its day and considered one of the 1st tablets.  The hand writing recognition was 1/2 decent, I had a go.  This was release in 1993.

While Apple was releasing the Newton, Archos was releasing hardware for the Amiga.


----------



## Sunray (Jun 8, 2012)

editor said:


> They claim to invented all sorts of things, but more often that not these days the courts don't seem inclined to agree.
> 
> Rounded corners and a flat screen anyone?


 
Really not answering the question I asked.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 8, 2012)

Well that's me told. Never get into an argument with someone geekier than yourself.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2012)

Sunray said:


> Do not forget the Newton, which is a fairly impressive gadget of its day and considered one of the 1st tablets. The hand writing recognition was 1/2 decent, I had a go. This was release in 1993.


It was a bit like the GRiDPad. From 1989.






http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/10-memorable-milestones-in-tablet-history-924916

And before the Newton came the Zoomer (1992). Look familiar?





http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/10-memorable-milestones-in-tablet-history-924916


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 10, 2012)

grit said:


> His shareholders are very very thankful.



Yep over half a trillion dollar market cap seems to indicate this crap isn't bad for business.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep over half a trillion dollar market cap seems to indicate this crap isn't bad for business.


Yes. The handful at the top get filthy rich, the company gives fuck all back while continuing to exploit the workforce to make even more cash for themselves.

Ain't business great!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Yes. The handful at the top get filthy rich, the company gives fuck all back while continuing to exploit the workforce to make even more cash for themselves.
> 
> Ain't business great!



You don't like money go live in a cave.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You don't like money go live in a cave.


Err, there is something between the two extremes and there are such things as ethical businesses.


----------



## editor (Jun 10, 2012)

Here's a timely - and rather controversial - article:


> "So Gates, sure, is the most ruthless capitalist. And then he decides, he wakes up one morning and he says, 'Enough.' And he steps down, he takes his money, takes it off the table ... and I think, I firmly believe that 50 years from now, he will be remembered for his charitable work. No one will even remember what Microsoft is.
> "And of the great entrepreneurs of this era, people will have forgotten Steve Jobs. Who's Steve Jobs again?


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405562,00.asp


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2012)

And so it goes on. Apple's just been found guilty of violating a Samsung patent and will most likely be hit with a big fine (which will be pennies to Apple).

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/20/3...ompensation-from-apple-following-favorable-3g

More: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/samsung-finally-wins-its-first.html?m=1


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2012)

Apple have been told to fuck off with their pathetic attempt to ban HTC phones over a patent that "covers a system to detect telephone numbers in e-mails so, when the number on the screen is tapped, they can be stored in directories or called without dialing."



> “The commission finds that Apple has not demonstrated the propriety of temporary emergency action here,” the Washington- based agency wrote. “The commission will not direct Customs to detain all subject HTC products because the commission does not have the information necessary to determine whether the respondents are currently violating the commission’s limited exclusion order.”
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-02/apple-loses-bid-for-emergency-ban-on-htc-phone-imports


----------



## gabi (Jul 3, 2012)

> Apple can't compete on innovation


 
I really dont know where to begin describing how stupid this comment is 

Let's just say. it's fucking stupid.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2012)

gabi said:


> I really dont know where to begin describing how stupid this comment is
> 
> Let's just say. it's fucking stupid.


Perhaps you could point me in the direction of their recent ground-breaking smartphone innovations?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2012)

Apple lost their HTC case in London too with their shitty patent trolling. 



> The four patents at stake were:
> 
> Unlocking a device by performing a gesture on an image.
> The use of a multilingual keyboard offering different alphabets on portable devices, including mobile phones.
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

Apple have just lost their equally shitty case against Samsung in the UK.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 9, 2012)

The judge did offer a little consolation ...  



> The Galaxy tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Birss said. “They are not as cool.”


Bloomberg


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

I don't care how uncool a judge thinks a products is. I just want these pathetic, frivolous, competition-squashing cases to be consigned to history.


----------



## southside (Jul 9, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> iphone5 will be an android wrapped in an Apple shell, fact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just as WW4 will be fought with bow and arrows.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 9, 2012)

Sadly the wars are far from over, look at the billions recently spent by various companies on acquiring patent rights.

It needs a political solution and how many politicians are brave enough to it on?


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2012)

editor said:


> I don't care how uncool a judge thinks a products is. I just want these pathetic, frivolous, competition-squashing cases to be consigned to history.


 
I haven't read the whole decision, but I'm not sure that it was quite as frivolous as you make out.  The closing summary from the Judge was as follows:




			
				Judge Birss said:
			
		

> This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> I haven't read the whole decision, but I'm not sure that it was quite as frivolous as you make out. The closing summary from the Judge was as follows:


And the important bit being: "The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. "

Despite claiming otherwise, Apple did not invent rounded corners, flat screens and black bezels with no decoration, along with all the other stuff they've tried to claim for themselves in an attempt to get rival products banned.


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2012)

editor said:


> And the important bit being: "The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. "
> 
> Despite claiming otherwise, Apple did not invent rounded corners, flat screens and black bezels with no decoration, along with all the other stuff they've tried to claim for themselves in an attempt to get rival products banned.


 
I'm not disagreeing with you about the correctness of the final decision, I'm just disputing that the claim was "frivolous".  That implies that Apple had no chance of winning (and perhaps that they just brought the claim to cause trouble).  All I'm saying is that if the Judge started off thinking the tablets looked similar, then it wasn't a frivolous claim.  It took a Court case and a careful analysis of the evidence for the Judge to reach the correct decision.  Sounds a lot like the IP system working properly to me.

Of course, the Court could have saved itself a lot of time by taking soundings from those on this thread


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you about the correctness of the final decision, I'm just disputing that the claim was "frivolous". That implies that Apple had no chance of winning (and perhaps that they just brought the claim to cause trouble)....


In a sane world, they should have no claim at all because they didn't invent the form factor, as the judge rightly pointed out.

But now they'll go off to other countries and keep trying the same bullshit to get rival products banned. It's pathetic, with consumers the losers.


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2012)

editor said:


> In a sane world, they should have no claim at all because they didn't invent the form factor, as the judge rightly pointed out.


 
Yes, but _who_ decides that they didn't invent the form factor?  That's what a Court is for - to look at the evidence and decide.  The Court did that, and reached the right decision.  You should be pleased!


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> Yes, but _who_ decides that they didn't invent the form factor? That's what a Court is for - to look at the evidence and decide. The Court did that, and reached the right decision. You should be pleased!


The problem I have with this process is that Apple - with their vast legal, nit-picking, deep trousered resources - have managed to ban the sales of rival products during this ridiculous process, unfairly limiting consumer choice. They should never have been allowed to get this far.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 10, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> The judge did offer a little consolation ...
> 
> Bloomberg


 
This cracked me up, it's literally the most incredible thing I've heard a judge say in a ruling!


----------



## elbows (Jul 10, 2012)

I would like to think that all this stuff may result in a new and productive debate about various forms of intellectual property law that ultimately results in change, but I dont have a lot of hope.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2012)

FFS. Apple are out of control. Not only are they trying to get five Samsung tablets and ten phones banned but now they're just making up figures for 'damages.'



> Apple Inc claims it is entitled to $2.525 billion of damages in its high-stakes battle against Samsung Electronics Co over patents for technology used in smartphones and tablets, such as the iPhone and iPad.
> 
> The estimate was revealed in a court filing early Tuesday, six days before the world's largest consumer electronics companies are scheduled on July 30 to begin a jury trial before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.
> 
> ...


The reason why Samsung is outselling Apple is the mobile sector is _because they make better products_. And that's why Apple's tablets are outselling Samsung's efforts, although they're clearly starting to fear the way the wind is blowing and running off to their lawyers.

Background: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/24/the-apple-samsung-trial-what-samsung-will-attempt-to-prove/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2012)

LOL Samsung aint outselling because their products are 'better' (a stupidly subjective term in this context), it's because they're cheaper!


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> LOL Samsung aint outselling because their products are 'better' (a stupidly subjective term in this context), it's because they're cheaper!


Feel the self pwnage.

Apple iPhone 4S 16GB unlocked = £499
Samsung Galaxy SIII Sim Free Smartphone - 16GB = £499


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2012)

Apple slap down a massive:



editor said:


> Feel the self pwnage.
> 
> Apple iPhone 4S 16GB unlocked = £499
> Samsung Galaxy SIII Sim Free Smartphone - 16GB = £499


 
LOL what an arse! Because everyone buys a phone outright, I was talking in the real world dickhead! On tarriff the iPhone 4S is nearly always more expensive! 

Feel the self pwnage.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2012)

Heh Apple really are going for troll of the year 2012:






Apple, yesterday.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Because everyone buys a phone outright, I was talking in the real world dickhead!


I just posted 'real world' figures. Complete with sources.

Now PLEASE cut out this childish personal abuse and try to discuss topics with civility. Thanks.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 25, 2012)

Can you create forums that are only visible to certain people? You could call it the Apple! Android! Apocalypse! Arena! - "two men enter, all men bored"


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 29, 2012)

mauvais said:


> Can you create forums that are only visible to certain people? You could call it the Apple! Android! Apocalypse! Arena! - "two men enter, all men bored"


 
Innit, except it the Apple one would be Ed enters, shouts at the room for two days, everyone else ignores it and gets on with their lives.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2012)

<edit: removed because I can't be arsed with it>


----------



## souljacker (Jul 29, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> LOL Samsung aint outselling because their products are 'better' (a stupidly subjective term in this context), it's because they're cheaper!​


 
In my opinion, the Galaxy S2 is a far better phone than the iPhone4. I've not used a 4S but by all accounts its not a great advance on the 4. Obviously, we now have the S3, which is considered a huge step up from the S2 so I suspect it would piss all over the 4S.

I've said it before and I'll probably say it many more times in the next few months, but unless the iPhone 5 is something pretty spectacular, they may have jumped the shark, phone-wise.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2012)

There's some damn good reasons why the Galaxy S3 is outselling the iPhone 4S and it's got bugger all to do with price.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 29, 2012)

It's all about eco-system wars and is it worth sacrificing one's App investment to switch platforms.
If I were in the market for a new phone *today* it would be Galaxy S3, which would cost me an extra £80 in abandoned iPhone Apps


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 29, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> It's all about eco-system wars and is it worth sacrificing one's App investment to switch platforms.
> If I were in the market for a new phone *today* it would be Galaxy S3, which would cost me an extra £80 in abandoned iPhone Apps


 
Indeed, ecosystem lock in is where the money is. This is why about 18 months ago I started moving a lot of my phone uses to products which are available on multiple platforms (like Dropbox and Evernote) or are easy to find other versions which provide the same features without too much export/import fucking about (like Spotify).


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2012)

Apple have just wielded their moralistic ban stick again and censored another app. 



> Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes
> It seemed like a simple enough idea for an iPhone app: Send users a pop-up notice whenever a flying robots kills someone in one of America’s many undeclared wars. But Apple keeps blocking the Drones+ program from its App Store — and therefore, from iPhones everywhere. The Cupertino company says the content is “objectionable and crude,” according to Apple’s latest rejection letter.
> It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.
> Begley is confused. Drones+ doesn’t present grisly images of corpses left in the aftermath of the strikes. It just tells users when a strike has occurred, going off a publicly available database of strikes compiled by the U.K.’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which compiles media accounts of the strikes.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/drone-app/


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 30, 2012)

Wrong and counter productive, all it will do is generate coverage meaning success on other platforms...


----------



## elbows (Aug 30, 2012)

Thats a fascinating and horrific example of app censorship, I put it in a different category to most of the stories we hear about on this front. Its an example that actually lives up to the sort of dystopian nightmares people like to evoke when pondering the downsides of curated app stores & associated control-freakery.

There are all sorts of other issues people can fairly pick on in regards to app store & device control, but this is the only one that really gets me going and should be able to loudly and clearly remind people why its in our interests to see software store models that are not like the Apple one succeed.

The problem is that opinion still seems to be that Apple are the only ones to make a good enough success of their app store so far. Should be careful with this statement since there are at least four different sorts of judges of whether an app store is a success - users, developers, google, journalists. Google were unhappy enough that they rebranded it, and unhappy enough with android tablets that they went for the nexus 7 pricing & play store voucher thing. Developers are not exactly loving levels of android app sales, hardware fragmentation or piracy rates, but overall opinion is probably a bit more mixed than that. For users I cant say, probably reasonably happy on phones apart from some app quality or malware/notification advert issues, but not happy enough with apps on larger tablets to have made 10 inch android tablets a roaring success thus far. Journalists may have existing bias or may get stuck on one version of reality well beyond the point where it ceases to be true, but so far it seems fair enough that few of them would write that the android store has been a roaring success.

So as a user who remains somewhat underwhelmed with android apps, and who fears my developments for android are going to struggle to bring me much money, please forgive me for saying that although success stories on the google play store can be found, its hard to describe the store overall as a roaring success.

Now dont get me wrong, only two or three of the failings of the android store are directly related to Googles decision not to police it like Apple do theirs. But the store really needs to succeed on all the major fronts regardless of cause, in order to undermine Apples store advantages to the point that Apples control-freakery can no longer be excused on the basis that their model has worked and others havent.

I'd like to think that the above tale will change somewhat due to google play store successes, but I find it easier to believe that change on that front will be hard and slow, and that the main change to the picture over the next year will be Microsofts Windows 8 tablets entering the foray and the level of success or failure the Microsoft app store will enjoy as a result. Already there are signs that Microsoft will try to make Apple look bad by handling certain aspects more clearly, eg providing more concrete info on what will or will not be allowed and how the app review process works. But I'll have to wait for that detail before saying more, since in terms of this sort of censorship they might end up as bad as Apple, just more honest about it, hard to say.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2012)

Moralistic, Puritanical Apple strike again, this time editing the title of Naomi Wolf's new book because it contained the word' vagina'. You know, the medical term for a lady's sexual organs.





> Vagina by Naomi Wolf covered up by Apple iTunes
> The ebook of the feminist author's blockbuster study of how society has avoided thinking and talking about women's genitals is asterisked out
> 
> The title of Naomi Wolf's new book, which explores why the vagina is still thought of as "slightly shameful" even today, has been censored by Apple.
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/13/naomi-wolf-vagina-apple-itunes-censors


----------

