Apple adds Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note to 'Galaxy Nexus' complaint

[kdarling]

But something tells me those live wallpapers, along with just about everything that goes on within the Android system, kill your phone in a matter of hours.

Correctly done live wallpapers (I've written one) have minimal effect on the battery.

They usually only run when you're actually looking at a homescreen... and that's not that often. Normally you turn on your phone, look, find some info or start an app, and you no longer see the background.

Of course, it depends on the wallpaper. For example, one that simply changes static backgrounds can use as little as 15 seconds of CPU time a day. At the other end of the spectrum, an unusually interactive one could use 15 seconds of CPU every minute of viewing, but again how long are you actually looking at your homescreen each day? A few minutes at most?

To cause battery issues, you'd have to sit there keeping the screen alive just to enjoy a background animation... which people tend to do when they first get live wallpapers ... but that's conceptually no different than sitting and watching a video or using a game app which would also use battery.

 

[2ndchancephones]

No the turning me off is more because of the way they are handling business. I agree Samsung snagged some ideas from apple but then to turn around and try to get other handsets banned just seems like overdoing it. Just feel after the 1b loss Samsung should have learned their lesson and apple would just be happy with their money. Both of them continuing to go at each other just doesn't seem that friendly. I like to think of apple as being friendly.

It's not about the money and if you think Apple should be happy just because they got 1 billion then you are wrong. It's also not about Apple being "friendly"...it's about companies stealing from them.

 

[SprSynJn]

Using a phone results in the battery losing charge...

Agreed. Except with an Android, you don't even need to use it to have it drain. That was my point. You do have to give credit to Apple for making operating systems that don't tax the batteries as much. I am aware that the 4S is the exception, as my wife has one. I'm pretty sure that has to do with something other than the main OS though. My iPad has been updated to the same version and has not seen one dip in performance.

 

[Oletros]

Except with an Android, you don't even need to use it to have it drain.

Exactly like in iOS

 

[smoledman]

It's not about the money and if you think Apple should be happy just because they got 1 billion then you are wrong. It's also not about Apple being "friendly"...it's about companies stealing from them.

So for this "stealing", Apple is entitled to a virtual monopoly in smartphones?

 

[Zombie Acorn]

The sad fact is Apple patented the best way to do many things on a phone and is now suing the pants off their competition for imitating some of these things (because there really isn't better ways to approach a lot of the UI).

Any competition that is left standing after Apple is done with them will only be able to produce half-assed versions of the most basic UI. Who wins? Apple.

Oh, and no one can make a square phone with round corners either.

Apple invented the wheel and has the patent on it. Now, everyone else must turn out a product with something other than round wheels. Who wins? Apple.

I hope everyone is happy with Apple becoming the only game in town, because that's really going to suck and isn't good for anyone in the long run. Using their products is really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth

What is really sad is the people granting these patents don't know enough or care enough about the actual field to send Apple packing. Apple knows the patents they send in are ********, but they also know the system is so ****ing clogged up that no one will really analyze prior art, prior work, or what is being taught in academia.

 

[entatlrg]

My GS3 got updated and losing universal search. I dont miss it but your right, it is ridiculous.

Bummer, eh? And to think all Samsung had to do was pay a licensing fee to continue to give their customers a richer experience.

If Samsung can't steal it for nothing then their consumers don't get the feature I guess?

How's that for being focused on the end user experience!

 

[kdarling]

What is really sad is the people granting these patents don't know enough or care enough about the actual field to send Apple packing. Apple knows the patents they send in are ********, but they also know the system is so ****ing clogged up that no one will really analyze prior art, prior work, or what is being taught in academia.

Yep, Apple knows how to work the patent system, which currently runs at a profit due to the quantity of patent submittals and reviews.

Apple submits an application and gets denied. So they modify it a bit and resubmit. They do this over and over again until the examiner has spent so much time on it, he gives up and grants the patent, figuring it can be invalidated later if need be.

IMO, software patents favor corporations with the time and money to invest in this behavior.

It's not about the money and if you think Apple should be happy just because they got 1 billion then you are wrong. It's also not about Apple being "friendly"...it's about companies stealing from them.

It's not about the stealing, either. Apple said they were willing to license their IP, which means they don't care about keeping it to themselves, and you just pointed out that they don't need the license money. So if they don't care if it's used by others and they don't need the money, what's their reason for so many legal attacks? Perhaps:

1) Slow down their competition with sales injunctions. That's the first thing Apple asks for each time. They don't want to wait and get damages later on. They want to lock customers into the iTunes ecosystem now, and not lose them to another system. It's harder to get them back.

2) Apple might want leverage in patent negotiations. For example, LTE FRAND patents can total from 15% to 30% of the price of a phone, unless you can force cross-licensing. Then it can drop as low as 3%.

Yes, it sounds a bit illogical. If they don't need license money coming in, why care about FRAND rates going out? I think it's more to do with chasing a device's profit margin. Plus it can be a lot of money saved, and thus a lot denied to their competition.

 

[Oletros]

Bummer, eh? And to think all Samsung had to do was pay a licensing fee to continue to give their customers a richer experience.

If Samsung can't steal it for nothing then their consumers don't get the feature I guess?

How's that for being focused on the end user experience!

It was a preliminary injunction, there is no sentence

 

[KnightWRX]

Agreed. Except with an Android, you don't even need to use it to have it drain. That was my point. You do have to give credit to Apple for making operating systems that don't tax the batteries as much. I am aware that the 4S is the exception, as my wife has one. I'm pretty sure that has to do with something other than the main OS though. My iPad has been updated to the same version and has not seen one dip in performance.

Android or iPhone makes no difference. Even in "stand-by", phones drain batteries just trying to stay connected to the cellular network. That is the biggest source of drain. The less the signal strength, the more the drain too. iPhone isn't immune to this, no phone OS is, as it is completely out of the hands of the OS, and into the hands of the radio chipset and carrier.

You're just making stuff up at this point, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. I love my iPhone as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's some kind of god phone that can break the laws of physics.

And heck, the battery drains hella fast on my iPhone 4S, not because of some flaw, but because I play IB II and Catan a lot on it.

----------

Bummer, eh? And to think all Samsung had to do was pay a licensing fee to continue to give their customers a richer experience.

Yeah, because 40$ per handset, including those that are non-infringing or don't even retail for that much is such a reasonable and acceptable term. All Samsung had to do was basically pay Apple to take parts from its factories.

Samsung couldn't license it because Apple doesn't want to license their patents. Their mockery of an offer to do so shouldn't fool you, you're an intelligent guy, you knew darn well that offer was made in a way it was 100% garanteed to be refused.

----------

1) Slow down their competition with sales injunctions. That's the first thing Apple asks for each time. They don't want to wait and get damages later on. They want to lock customers into the iTunes ecosystem now, and not lose them to another system. It's harder to get them back.

2) Apple might want leverage in patent negotiations. For example, LTE FRAND patents can total from 15% to 30% of the price of a phone, unless you can force cross-licensing. Then it can drop as low as 3%.

Yes, it sounds a bit illogical. If they don't need license money coming in, why care about FRAND rates going out? I think it's more to do with chasing a device's profit margin. Plus it can be a lot of money saved, and thus a lot denied to their competition.

This sums it up perfectly. Apple wants to keep margins high and customers locked into the upgrade cycle. Remember kids : the iPhone is now over 50% of Apple revenues. They are starting to look like all their eggs are in that basket.

 

[Dolorian]

Samsung couldn't license it because Apple doesn't want to license their patents.

What about Microsoft? Didn't they license some patents from Apple?

 

[KnightWRX]

What about Microsoft? Didn't they license some patents from Apple?

Out of the old agreement made in the 90s when Apple wasn't so healthy ? Yeah. Different decade, different culture.

 

[Dolorian]

Out of the old agreement made in the 90s when Apple wasn't so healthy ? Yeah. Different decade, different culture.

Hmm no, for the new Windows Phone I mean. Wasn't it pointed out in the recent trial?

 

[G51989]

Out of the old agreement made in the 90s when Apple wasn't so healthy ? Yeah. Different decade, different culture.

Yeah, from what I understand, don't they license each others patents and technology regular basis's?

 

[smoledman]

Yeah, from what I understand, don't they license each others patents and technology regular basis's?

Apple did that out of a position of weakness. Believe me, 99% of Mac-o-philes would trash that agreement if there was a way. They hate Microsoft with a maniacal passion.

 

[G51989]

Apple did that out of a position of weakness. Believe me, 99% of Mac-o-philes would trash that agreement if there was a way. They hate Microsoft with a maniacal passion.

Apple did it to save their ass, so your right about that one.

But those Mac O Philes have this idea that there is some " massive Microsoft vs Apple war " going on, when there isn't.

 

[smoledman]

Apple did it to save their ass, so your right about that one.

But those Mac O Philes have this idea that there is some " massive Microsoft vs Apple war " going on, when there isn't.

There is a war going on in their minds. Thing is they tend to be engineers and they know what they're talking about. Like when they point out Macs have a superior built in audio engine driven by Core Audio library APIs. Windows has WDM but it's higher latency and less features. Or when they point out iMovie, there is no Windows Phone equivalent.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yeah, from what I understand, don't they license each others patents and technology regular basis's?

Chance are they are still going under the old agreement from the 90's. Plus Apple know full out and well ms could cripple them in one blie

 

[Oletros]

Apple did that out of a position of weakness. Believe me, 99% of Mac-o-philes would trash that agreement if there was a way. They hate Microsoft with a maniacal passion.

That you hate something or someone doesn't means that others hate.

 

[ipedro]

That was never in doubt and proves that Apple has evil intentions to completely stifle competition.

Evidently you're blinded by your myopic view of the industry. Has Apple sued Microsoft? Has Apple sued RIM? Had Apple sued Palm? Apple has in fact licensed its patents to Microsoft. How is that stifling competition?

It is not coincidental that Apple is pursuing Samsung. Samsung has blatantly copied Apple and this was proven in a billion dollar lawsuit, with a unanimous verdict reached by a jury.

The message is clear. Steal Apple's work and you'll get sued. Innovate and you're welcome into the market. Once Android differentiates itself from iOS, they'll be welcome to join Microsoft and RIM in competing with Apple.

 

[Oletros]

Once Android differentiates itself from iOS, they'll be welcome to join Microsoft and RIM in competing with Apple.

Are you admitting that you haven't seen Android?

 

[G51989]

Evidently you're blinded by your myopic view of the industry. Has Apple sued Microsoft? Has Apple sued RIM? Had Apple sued Palm? Applele has in fact licensed its patents to Microsoft. How is that stifling competition?

Apple Has not sued Microsoft because Microsoft for the most part does not infringe on Apples Craptents.

ALSO, don't talk like this " Oh Apple is so nice to License to Microsoft ", its a cross licensing agreement that dates back to the 90s, Apple uses Microsoft patents as well. Clearly they saw something in the surface because they licensed patents from it as well.

And They have not sued RIM, or Palm, because in case you didnt realize, not only have Palm and RIM and Microsoft made OS's that don't look or work anything like iOS, they've been doing it much longer than Apple has. Apple would have zero chance in court. Don't think the smart phone came around because of Apple, it was around for about a decade before.

It is not coincidental that Apple is pursuing Samsung. Samsung has blatantly copied Apple and this was proven in a billion dollar lawsuit, with a unanimous verdict reached by a jury.

In a crap trial, by a crap jury. The judge with held lots of prior art evidence from the jury. The jury also fully understood a 100 page instruction set, and answered 700 questions in 3 days? Don't expect that verdict to stand. There is a very good chance it will be appealed, and thrown out. Notice how Apple has been losing lawsuits like this in other countries?

The message is clear. Steal Apple's work and you'll get sued. Innovate and you're welcome into the market. Once Android differentiates itself from iOS, they'll be welcome to join Microsoft and RIM in competing with Apple.

You clearly know nothing about the history of smart phones, or Android.

Yeah, totally the same thing

 

[Aluminum213]

going after the GS3 and Note? and people for a second thought Apple's goal wasn't to just eliminate the competition via legal mean?


fact it Apple, the GS3 blows away the iPhone 4S, as an iPhone 4 owner I looked at the S3 like Just better in every way


let's see that Apple has with the iPhone 5

 

[ipedro]

Apple Has not sued Microsoft because Microsoft for the most part does not infringe on Apples Craptents.

(...)

And They have not sued RIM, or Palm, because in case you didnt realize, not only have Palm and RIM and Microsoft made OS's that don't look or work anything like iOS,

Exactly. Apple has not sued the others because they haven't copied Apple. Apple has sued (and won) Samsung because they did copy Apple. That's the point. Apple is not stifling competition in the marketplace, they're stifling those who copy them.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple Has not sued Microsoft because Microsoft for the most part does not infringe on Apples Craptents.

How do you figure ? They all infringe on each other's patents, because there are so many patents out there, it's literally impossible to write software that doesn't infringe someone else's patents.

Apple has not sued Microsoft because of the age old cross-license agreement, but moreso because right now Microsoft just isn't even relevant in the smartphone or tablet industry.

Apple's goal is to slow down the competition. You don't waste time beating up the fat kid at the back, you have to push and shove the front runners.

----------

Exactly. Apple has not sued the others because they haven't copied Apple. Apple has sued (and won) Samsung because they did copy Apple. That's the point. Apple is not stifling competition in the marketplace, they're stifling those who copy them.

Patent infringement has nothing to do with copying. Heck, look objectively at the jury decision about D'677. If the Galaxy S II Epic infringes D'677, then the BB Storm, the Nokia Lumia and basically any phone that's a slab infringes that damn "rectangle with rounded corners" patent.

The Epic looks nothing like the drawings!