Thats not a samsung store. Its a samsung display in a third party store. The store put those icons up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Here we go again. Will Apple finally go head to head against Google over the Nexus?
- Thread starter depths
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thats not a samsung store. Its a samsung display in a third party store. The store put those icons up.
Motorola, i.e. Google, filed a lawsuit against Apple 6 months ago and seeking an injunction. Will you blame Google to be fair?
Did you not read where I said you can't blame Apple b/c the systems rules allow them and any company to do so.Motorola, i.e. Google, filed a lawsuit against Apple 6 months ago and seeking an injunction. Will you blame Google to be fair?
------>
An injunction never seems right before a trial has decided whether there actually was an infringement or not.
Especially in a case where a patented idea clearly was not stolen, but was obvious enough that others came up with the same method on their own... which tends to indicate that the patent should be invalidated.
(The patent is about typing in a search term for which multiple subsystems... such as ones for files or apps... begin searching for a match. As you type, their best matches show up as an aid. Yes, you've seen this quite often.)
I'm all for patent protection where it's for an actual unique invention, but this isn't one. Most software isn't.
Perhaps we need more jurists with common sense and guts like the very respected Judge Posner, who threw out the Apple & Motorola case last week.
Especially in a case where a patented idea clearly was not stolen, but was obvious enough that others came up with the same method on their own... which tends to indicate that the patent should be invalidated.
(The patent is about typing in a search term for which multiple subsystems... such as ones for files or apps... begin searching for a match. As you type, their best matches show up as an aid. Yes, you've seen this quite often.)
I'm all for patent protection where it's for an actual unique invention, but this isn't one. Most software isn't.
Perhaps we need more jurists with common sense and guts like the very respected Judge Posner, who threw out the Apple & Motorola case last week.
Errr.....a galaxy nexus looks like an iPhone? Both physically and software wise?
Wow, just wow. Are judges too stupid nowadays to believe this?
You don't respect intellectual property rights including software, music, movies, design, idea. lol...
You don't respect intellectual property rights including software, music, movies, design, idea. lol...
Well if you want to go there, Apple didnt invent the touchscreen and werent the first to do it. Apple just whines like bitches when somebody else does something similar.
Maybe they should kick their efforts into a higher gear and do something more than once a year so they arent falling behind like they are?
If they want to do it at their pace, great, but dont all the sudden cry when someone else isnt sitting around at their pace and doing some great things and taking customers away.
I want Apple to try and go after something bigger, more mainstream (say the SGS-III) ... Then I want to see them get crushed accordingly.
Apple is a little whiny b**** and a mockery of the U.S. patent system.
Apple is a little whiny b**** and a mockery of the U.S. patent system.
Trolling as usual and I fail to see why you're even here, on a Mac fan site since you hate Apple so much.
That said, Apple has already attempted to go after the SGS3. Back in June they attempted to have it added to their injunction against the Nexus. Samsung fought back, but I'm sure it won't be long before they're both in court over that device as well.
I don't hate Apple products, I hate their slimy business tactics. If you can't handle differing opinions on internet forums then you better not join
Yes, that's exactly what I want. Apple to go after a hugely popular phone and either get annihilated in court like they were in the Motorola case a week ago or actually succeed and cause patent reform.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention before, but I never saw Apple suing Android manufacturers back when it was first released. It wasn't until early 2011 I saw the lawsuits, which is around the same time Android started gaining popularity. I really think Apple is beginning to realize Android manufacturers, especially Samsung, are gaining massive popularity and hurting iPhone sales. The lawsuits are just so anti-competitive.
And why are they only seeking an injunction on the GNex? These patents apply to all Android devices. But, other than the S3 and One X, the Gnex is the iPhone's biggest competition. Go figure.
And why are they only seeking an injunction on the GNex? These patents apply to all Android devices. But, other than the S3 and One X, the Gnex is the iPhone's biggest competition. Go figure.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention before, but I never saw Apple suing Android manufacturers back when it was first released. It wasn't until early 2011 I saw the lawsuits, which is around the same time Android started gaining popularity. I really think Apple is beginning to realize Android manufacturers, especially Samsung, are gaining massive popularity and hurting iPhone sales. The lawsuits are just so anti-competitive.
And why are they only seeking an injunction on the GNex? These patents apply to all Android devices. But, other than the S3 and One X, the Gnex is the iPhone's biggest competition. Go figure.
You weren't paying attention then. In March 2010, they went after HTC over 20 patent violations.
Of course, what you and others fail to acknowledge is that practically every other company has attempted to take Apple into court as well. This isn't nearly as one sided as you make it seem.
Apple may technically be in the right to do this and the judge did give a prelim temp injunction, but I don't see it lasting. Apple has to prove irreparable harm financially and Judge Koh these words very carefully, "Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm". This to me looks like a scapegoat clause for Judge Koh, should the Appellate Court overturn the judgement, or send it back.
And wasn't the 4S the best selling device on all major carriers for pretty much the whole year. I can't see how a Judge could believe Apple was effected by the GNexus? And to me, the GNex looks nothing at all like an iPhone.
Now if we are talking about the Galaxy Tab, that is what I call a big time ripoff. I happen to own a Tab 8.9 and an iPad2. Do you know how many times I have confused myself as to which power cord goes to which device! They look identical in every way. (I happen to have black colored 6 foot aftermarket cords for my Apple products, cause I needed the longer length cord.) by the way, the Tab 8.9 on Honeycomb OS is the biggest piece of crap. I don't think it's the hardware, just a really crappy OS. I'm waiting for AT&T to grace me with an update to ICS. It is my hope that it makes the Tab a better tablet.
Sorry for the long post. I just don't feel that banning devices is the proper way to go about enforcing your patents. I think it promotes ill will to some consumers. I think the Judges should impose heavy fines or force licensing agreements. If the offending party doesn't pay, then they get banned.
And wasn't the 4S the best selling device on all major carriers for pretty much the whole year. I can't see how a Judge could believe Apple was effected by the GNexus? And to me, the GNex looks nothing at all like an iPhone.
Now if we are talking about the Galaxy Tab, that is what I call a big time ripoff. I happen to own a Tab 8.9 and an iPad2. Do you know how many times I have confused myself as to which power cord goes to which device! They look identical in every way. (I happen to have black colored 6 foot aftermarket cords for my Apple products, cause I needed the longer length cord.) by the way, the Tab 8.9 on Honeycomb OS is the biggest piece of crap. I don't think it's the hardware, just a really crappy OS. I'm waiting for AT&T to grace me with an update to ICS. It is my hope that it makes the Tab a better tablet.
Sorry for the long post. I just don't feel that banning devices is the proper way to go about enforcing your patents. I think it promotes ill will to some consumers. I think the Judges should impose heavy fines or force licensing agreements. If the offending party doesn't pay, then they get banned.
I think people need a reminder and to actually watch the 2007 iPhone keynote and be reminded that Apple created the smartphone as we know it today.
They also need to be reminded by the words of Steve Jobs himself about what the iPhone's technologies meant to Apple.
Why doesn't Apple have these problems with Microsoft or Blackberry. WebOS was pretty slick, and managed not to steal from Apple. Maybe because those companies have vastly more experience with designing an OS and don't need to steal from Apple to create new products.
----------
Do you understand that Motorola has garbage for software patents and many of their hardware patents are FRAND.
Maybe you should do some research on what happens when companies try and extort using FRAND.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._google_motorola_over_frand_patent_abuse.html
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/06/ftc-tells-itc-that-banning-iphones-xboxes-a-bad-idea/
They also need to be reminded by the words of Steve Jobs himself about what the iPhone's technologies meant to Apple.
Why doesn't Apple have these problems with Microsoft or Blackberry. WebOS was pretty slick, and managed not to steal from Apple. Maybe because those companies have vastly more experience with designing an OS and don't need to steal from Apple to create new products.
----------
Do you understand that Motorola has garbage for software patents and many of their hardware patents are FRAND.
Maybe you should do some research on what happens when companies try and extort using FRAND.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._google_motorola_over_frand_patent_abuse.html
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/06/ftc-tells-itc-that-banning-iphones-xboxes-a-bad-idea/
To be fair - an injunction is only granted when there is a certain amount of evidence, etc - and that's why the person seeking an injunction must put up a bond to pay the other party back in case of the seeker being denied.
This is hardly a mockery. A mockery is that idiot that ried to sue NCSoft, I think it was (and then would of moved on to SOE and Blizzard) for violating their "System for users interacting in a 3D space" I think it was (basically).
Yeah, any 3-D MMO would of fallen afoul of that. Apparently they're going after blizzard with a slightly different one.
I am happy that Apple is taking this route. It is okay to compete but the Android was a total rip off of the iPhone. If you bother to do research you would see that the first prototype of the first android phone was a total copy of the blackberry. Once the iPhone was released Android was postponed until they copied the iPhone. Good for Apple.
Apple created the iPhone as we know it today, not the smartphone Technarchy.
Yes they improved on the products of the day. It could be said that Google has done this in the last year with ICS and now JB.
I've read a hell of a lot of comments about this latest move by Apple from various neutral sites and you're among a very small minority who think it's a good thing.
Surely you can accept that competition leads to innovation and in the tech industry there's always leap frogging.
But really, who could look at and use a GNexus and think it's an iPhone imitation?
At the end of the day what do you as a consumer want: higher profits for Apple or fair competition in the smart phone market leading to greater innovation?
Yes they improved on the products of the day. It could be said that Google has done this in the last year with ICS and now JB.
I've read a hell of a lot of comments about this latest move by Apple from various neutral sites and you're among a very small minority who think it's a good thing.
Surely you can accept that competition leads to innovation and in the tech industry there's always leap frogging.
But really, who could look at and use a GNexus and think it's an iPhone imitation?
At the end of the day what do you as a consumer want: higher profits for Apple or fair competition in the smart phone market leading to greater innovation?
Last edited:
What are you going to do about the icons? And do we really care what kind of box it comes in? How many even save those? Should Nike sue Reebok because they use the same shaped box and put their shoes in it the same way?
Apple is the only one that uses that connector. Everyone else uses a micro plug. So can everybody sue Apple when they switch to it?
Whaaaaa...you stole my box, slide to unlock and use icons. Hey wouldnt it be cool if they all sued each other and NO phones can be made or delivered?
I save the boxes.
Update from The Verge
" Update: We've now had a chance to review the imposing 101 page injunction order and while there's obviously a lot going on, the core of the order is actually pretty straightforward. The court found that each of the four asserted Apple patents is likely infringed and valid, but only issued an injunction for infringement of the '604 patent. Judge Koh reasoned that unlike the other three patents, the '604 patent covered the highly valued unified search feature of Siri that contributed greatly to consumer demand for the iPhone 4S. Moreover, the court held that Android's infringing "Quick Search Box" feature was touted by Google as a "core user feature on Android" and, therefore, was also a key selling point for the Galaxy Nexus. From there the judge concluded that Apple would suffer irreparable harm in the form of significant lost market share if sales of the competitive Galaxy Nexus, and its unified search capabilities, continued:
---
The Court is persuaded by the evidence in the record that the '604 unified search functionality drives consumer demand in a way that affects substantial market share. Even accepting Samsung's argument that the intelligent voice-recognition aspect of Siri, as advertised, also contributes to consumer interest in the iPhone 4S, Apple has shown that the '604 Patented feature is core to Siri's functionality and is thus a but-for driver of demand for Siri. Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple has adequately established the requisite causal nexus between Samsung's alleged infringement of the '604 Patent and Apple's risk of suffering irreparable harm."
http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/6/29/3126934/apple-samsung-judge-bans-galaxy-nexus
" Update: We've now had a chance to review the imposing 101 page injunction order and while there's obviously a lot going on, the core of the order is actually pretty straightforward. The court found that each of the four asserted Apple patents is likely infringed and valid, but only issued an injunction for infringement of the '604 patent. Judge Koh reasoned that unlike the other three patents, the '604 patent covered the highly valued unified search feature of Siri that contributed greatly to consumer demand for the iPhone 4S. Moreover, the court held that Android's infringing "Quick Search Box" feature was touted by Google as a "core user feature on Android" and, therefore, was also a key selling point for the Galaxy Nexus. From there the judge concluded that Apple would suffer irreparable harm in the form of significant lost market share if sales of the competitive Galaxy Nexus, and its unified search capabilities, continued:
---
The Court is persuaded by the evidence in the record that the '604 unified search functionality drives consumer demand in a way that affects substantial market share. Even accepting Samsung's argument that the intelligent voice-recognition aspect of Siri, as advertised, also contributes to consumer interest in the iPhone 4S, Apple has shown that the '604 Patented feature is core to Siri's functionality and is thus a but-for driver of demand for Siri. Accordingly, the Court finds that Apple has adequately established the requisite causal nexus between Samsung's alleged infringement of the '604 Patent and Apple's risk of suffering irreparable harm."
http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/6/29/3126934/apple-samsung-judge-bans-galaxy-nexus
People shouldn't get so emotionally charged in these patent battles. Google/Apple and Samsung are big corporations that really don't need anyone's rage or pity.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
----------
Same here. I have a stack of all my gadget boxes for when I inevitably sell them.
----
Edit: I do hope all those people that were making allegations of Judge Koh being unfair because of her Korean decent take it all back. I've read some quite hateful comments directed to her ethnicity and Asians in general over all this.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
----------
Same here. I have a stack of all my gadget boxes for when I inevitably sell them.
----
Edit: I do hope all those people that were making allegations of Judge Koh being unfair because of her Korean decent take it all back. I've read some quite hateful comments directed to her ethnicity and Asians in general over all this.
You don't respect intellectual property rights including software, music, movies, design, idea. lol...
What on earth are you talking about? All those arts have different protection methods and most deserve it.
I'm not a fan of software patents because the methods involved are often reinvented by anyone given a particular task. In other words, the methods are often independently invented with no knowledge of an existing patent, nor any intention to infringe.
This is why many countries don't even allow them, and neither really did the USA until the 1990s. Now a lot of people would like to restrict them again.
Apple seems particularly bad about applying for patents on software methods that no one else patented simply because it seemed ridiculous to try. E.g. using two fingers to rotate an imaginary knob on a touchscreen. We were doing that decades ago, but no one tried to patent it. Apple recently tried to.
Yes, but a bond doesn't bring back lost sales and halo effect opportunities and Apple knows it.
Apple doesn't care if the patent gets invalidated later on or not. It's just expendable ammunition in their campaign to throw temporary roadblocks in front of their competition until they can get an updated iPhone out. It's to buy time, not to right some wrong.
PS. Injunctions are often judge dependent. After reading over Posner transcripts in the Moto-Apple case, you can almost visualize him in the Samsung case asking Apple, "Are you trying to tell me that showing multiple search results as you type is the reason why people are buying the Galaxy? Are you asking me to ban sales on that alone? No."
Samsung violated 4 of Apple's patents and as a natural response, Apple sued Samsung. How is that wrong?
And Apple's patents are completely vaild. Otherwise, the would have been rejected.
Any other company who actually cares about their product would do the same.