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.
Appeals Court Overturns Sales Ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple were to operate on a truly competitive market we could have had something similar to a German car here, where quality and functionality is the trademark instead of blocking other manufacturers using corporate lawyers. According to an article in NY times recently highlighted in MacRumours, Apple and Google actually spend more money on lawsuits than R&D.
Working with mixed platforms I really like OSX, but the phone - the step is so small to get another brand.
Working with mixed platforms I really like OSX, but the phone - the step is so small to get another brand.
For technical working people, such as engineers and programmers the iPhone is a pain in the ass when you need it to perform, even though it is perfect for business people or salespersons who want child simplicity and functionality (and don't mind the restrictions with it).
I have to dissagree with you. Sorry but i dont think its good OS for business people. Infact its far from it. Its too difficult to work with. Its a very complex proceedure to download an attachment from your email, modify that document and resend the modifeid documents through email again, not without a huge amount of messing around and installing multiple Apps to eventually allow this to happen. Allot of formats cannot be even be read succsessfully on iOS. The amount of times I've had a simple PDF or excel document that refuses to open on iOS, but when I get to my PC it works fine.
But if I want to play angry birds is easy.
Agreed however the single biggest Achilles heel of the ios product line is iTunes.
There's also all the other instances, like the little lawsuit involving then Caldera (now the infamous SCO) and their DR-DOS lawsuit over other anti-competitive practices.
The fact was by the time Windows 95 shipped, Microsoft already had a monopoly on the desktop OS for consumers and business. They had pretty much obtained it through IBM granting it to them in the early 80s and the PC rising to be *THE* platform of choice for micro-computers (over all other options which were gone by the early 90s, except for Macs which were irrelevant).
The lawsuit also involved quite a few other pieces than just the Windows 98 Internet Explorer tidbit, that was just the most publicized. There were also aspects that at that moment, Microsoft's entire suite of communication protocols (from SMB to NTLM, not to mention WINS, etc..) were all secretely guarded, preventing anyone else from trying to enter the market with a compatible yet alternate solution.
In the world of monopolies like Microsoft had, the rules plainly are different. The US courts did force Microsoft to document and release specifications for their stuff, but by that time, it was too late and open standards had won out, Windows 2000 and Active Directory moving to DNS, LDAP and Kerberos. Microsoft did release the CIFS and SMB Specifications though.
Killing off Netscape and close to doing the same to Opera however got them in trouble. And they did almost succeed in stagnating the web with Internet Explorer, which at one time almost became a standard instead of the W3C stuff. Don't you guys remember the dark days of the Internet Explorer 6 era ? We had had good, W3C compliant browsers (Konqueror, based on KHTML... you know that one... the little HTML rendering engine that became Webkit) for a while, but websites were written for IE 6's quirks.
Maybe that has to do with the little fact that : Apple isn't a god damn Monopoly in any kind of market segment, thus they don't have to respect ANTI-TRUST laws. When Apple is anti-competitive with iOS or OS X, they're just jerks. When Microsoft was anti-competitive with Windows in the 90s, they had a big impact on the rest of the industry and the users of their products.
That's why you don't see the courts investigating Apple. There's nothing to investigage because Apple doesn't hold any sway over the industry. If Apple made Safari completely W3C standards incompatible tomorrow, well that would be tough cookies for them.
Are you guys just too young to remember this stuff ? I grew up in it. I was a Linux user during this tough period in computing where Microsoft almost single handedly destroyed the Open Web, where they made life a living hell for anyone not using Windows (not being to exchange files or communicate with a bunch of stuff except through reverse engineering which was always hit or miss).
Too bad if your sales are in the dumps. Your product still should be banned if it is not fully legal, patent-wise. Samsung should just get out of the tech business and start building toilets or something.
Honestly, who gave a patent for such a crap anyway? Things that are coomon use should not be patentable. If you look at this many products have search interfaces (e.g. Windows XP or even Google web search). Apple has even filled a patent for exchangeable batteries, how crazy is that?
Apple's going to be playing catchup on OS's.
With all these law suits , it's looking like Apple is rotten to the core
Wha--!!???
"LTE was first proposed by NTT DoCoMo of Japan in 2004, and studies on the new standard officially commenced in 2005.[10] In May 2007, the LTE/SAE Trial Initiative (LSTI) alliance was founded as a global collaboration between vendors and operators with the goal of verifying and promoting the new standard in order to ensure the global introduction of the technology as quickly as possible."
Well, I guess that blows your theory out of the water.
----------
Well "Goody Two Shoes" for you! ha ha
----------
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnn..........
"LTE was first proposed by NTT DoCoMo of Japan in 2004, and studies on the new standard officially commenced in 2005.[10] In May 2007, the LTE/SAE Trial Initiative (LSTI) alliance was founded as a global collaboration between vendors and operators with the goal of verifying and promoting the new standard in order to ensure the global introduction of the technology as quickly as possible."
Well, I guess that blows your theory out of the water.
----------
Well "Goody Two Shoes" for you! ha ha
----------
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnn..........
Not really.
NTT DoCoMo doesn't hold every patent for LTE and neither does the alliance.
What you posted is completely irrelevant to the topic of LTE patents.
So There!!
"...According to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute's (ETSI) "IPR-database" (with "IPR" standing for intellectual property rights), about 50 companies have declared, as of March 2012, holding essential patents covering the LTE standard.[36] The ETSI has made no investigation on the correctness of the declarations however,[36] so that "any analysis of essential LTE patents should take into account more than ETSI declarations...."
Unless you have detailed inside information on who owns what patent, then I doubt you know any more than the Average Joe on this topic.
"...According to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute's (ETSI) "IPR-database" (with "IPR" standing for intellectual property rights), about 50 companies have declared, as of March 2012, holding essential patents covering the LTE standard.[36] The ETSI has made no investigation on the correctness of the declarations however,[36] so that "any analysis of essential LTE patents should take into account more than ETSI declarations...."
Unless you have detailed inside information on who owns what patent, then I doubt you know any more than the Average Joe on this topic.
Nothing "inside" about searching the USPTO patent database."...According to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute's (ETSI) "IPR-database" (with "IPR" standing for intellectual property rights), about 50 companies have declared, as of March 2012, holding essential patents covering the LTE standard.[36] The ETSI has made no investigation on the correctness of the declarations however,[36] so that "any analysis of essential LTE patents should take into account more than ETSI declarations...."
Unless you have detailed inside information on who owns what patent, then I doubt you know any more than the Average Joe on this topic.
Just a matter of practicality and using the correct search criteria.
A quick search for "LTE" AND "telecommunications" returns 1495 results for patents awarded, not pending.
Ownership is listed in the filing. It's not a hidden field.
Samsung holds approx. 115 such patents in the US that meet those two search criteria.
I'm sure not all of them are specifically for LTE as some only use the term in reference, but you get the point.
The "Average Joe" is not restricted from seeing this information.
The fun (no really sad) part about these cases are, that Apple is the BIGGEST copycat of them all.
+1. Everyone steals these days..... Even the big companies do, or at least in part. And Apple is no exception.