If that is the case why isn't Nokia and others also included in this lawsuit, or are their market shares too small to be on Apple's radar?
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.
Apple Wins Injunction Barring U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Nexus Phone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So Android is 'uninnovative' because it uses icons rather than some radical (and ugly, and unintuitive IMHO) new concept like tiles? Err, golly, look - every GUI desktop OS since Lisa OS have had this 'feature', but since Apple stole it from Xerox in the first place, it'd be a difficult one to argue...
Nope, I've had enough. After 7 Mac laptops, a few desktops, numerous iPods and iDevices, I shan't be contributing any further to Apple's war chest. If they want to compete, they can do it fair and square and I hope other people in the tech community, if not the general public, are willing to vote with their wallets. Mac OS runs just as well on my homebuild PC as it does on 'real' Apple hardware, so its their loss.
No they have not gone after ms because Apple full out knows that ms has bigger guns that it can bring to bare and hit all of Apple products.
So what if it is found to not infringe? Does Apple pay for lost profits? (I know it's probably only a couple 1,000 phones, but a loss is a loss).
I can't help but sit here and chuckle at the people threatening to vote with their wallets to even out the moral playing field when the next round of products is released. GO DO IT THEN!
Nobody on these boards care if you get a Samsung product because "Apple was mean to them."
I, like the rest, will continue to evaluate each side by side and I'll pick the one that implements the feature sets the best and doesn't do a half hearted attempt to copy the other.
Now that's capitalism. Pick which is the best at the time you're ready to buy and that's the end of it.
All the whining in the world makes no difference.
Nobody on these boards care if you get a Samsung product because "Apple was mean to them."
I, like the rest, will continue to evaluate each side by side and I'll pick the one that implements the feature sets the best and doesn't do a half hearted attempt to copy the other.
Now that's capitalism. Pick which is the best at the time you're ready to buy and that's the end of it.
All the whining in the world makes no difference.
Yes it did, for your average consumer. For me personally? It was just another phone. A bad one at that compared to what I had at the time, but back then it was a flipphone market.
I guess I get irked when people badger on and on about ' iphone/steve/apple invented everything mobile RAWRZRARA " Every time I hear the fanboys...I just think back to my PocketPC and think " Hmmm. That did everything the iPhone did....and more....and it did all of it...better....and faster .... "
In the iPhones defense, my PocketPC WAS about 1300 dollars lol.
Android is based off a Linux kernel......iOS is not.....
Oh yeah, Android has been in development before iOS was even a concept.
Last edited:
Wasn't there Mapquest then (Yahoo Maps maybe?) Google Maps, then Bing? Should Mapquest sue the lot of them?
"Did you see anything like a Google Maps/Bing Maps website before the day the first Mapquest site was introduced to the public? Nope."
The Nokia 7110 was the first phone to come with a WAP browser. Should Nokia sue every phone manufacturer today?
"Did you see anything like a WAP-capable phone before the day the first Nokia 7110 was introduced? Nope."
And wasn't the Samsung Uproar (SPH-M100) the first phone capable of playing music, namely MP3 files? Look at all the phones that can play MP3s and music now!! Should Samsung sue everyone?
"Did you see anything like a MP3-capable phone before the day the first Samsung Uproar was introduced? Nope."
Since you support fighting "again" copyright infringement, shouldn't you hit up Mapquest, Nokia, and Samsung and let them know? By golly, Nokia might be able to bounce back by suing nearly every phone manufacturer!
My examples may not be the best, but my point is there.
And to answer your question, I saw phones that were like an iPhone before an iPhone came out. Older versions of Windows Mobile were not too shabby for the time. Blah blah, stuff about being an entrepreneur and copyright infringement, Microsoft should sue Apple and Google for infringing upon Windows Mobile, no? Etc., etc.
If the patent was over having the search itself, then it might make sense.
But the potential infringement is apparently based on internal implementation details, which matter not to the buyer.
The injunction was granted because Apple claimed that Siri drove their sales and the Samsung search box "irreparably" (meaning royalties wouldn't compensate) harms iPhone sales.
(*) But-for: In the law of Negligence, a principle that provides that the defendant's conduct is not the cause of an injury to the plaintiff, unless that injury would not have occurred except for ("but for") the defendant's conduct.
Perhaps you SHOULD have an agenda: get some education on corporate law and intellectual property law!
Yep!
Since when is stealing competition?
Too bad Steve's not here to see it, but good for him for not giving up.
So if someone steals from you (as you admit Google did), and profits from it at your expense, you suggest just lying down and taking it and losing millions of dollars in the spirit of "competition"?
---
I don't know if these and many other of the comments in this thread are laughable, disturbing, or just plain pathetic. What's certain is that they reflect a general lack of the most basic level of intelligence, intuition, and comprehension to even formulate cogent arguments. I suppose the education system takes some blame as well.
Oh well, at least some of the apologists in this thread don't make legal decisions, haha.
First to market has little to do with IP. If it it did the Diamond company or whomever owns their name today would own all portable digital music. IP is all about who gets the patent office to agree with them first and to what extent, and to what level of detail. The lawyers do the rest.
The whole system is "interesting" and there are a lot of voices for patent reform.
Its kind of a strange analogy, but many see IP as a form of corporate fuedalism, instead of a king granting you a tract of land to exploit the labor class, the government gives very broad rights to individuals and corporations and many of the individuals of course sign over those rights to corporations. With the corporate hold on IP, innovation and small businesses are forced to operate within a system that benefits the IP holder.
Its an interesting subject.
I was replying to how a patent could be applied to software after explaining what differences in design constitute patent violations or not.
Again, all your opinion. Of which your entitled too, just doesn't make any of it fact. What existed before the iPhone was not good enough. If it was good enough, iPhones would not have been successful, and we would be having this conversation. EDGE has nothing to do with the fact that web on a phone before the iPhone SUCKED. This is pretty much a fact of life as far as mobile phones go back then. The iPhone completely changed that. Simple proof of this is how it has SLOWED DOWN the net for how many phones (since then) started going online. Meaning this for 3G/2G connections, and super amounts of data use on mobile devices. It simply was not a problem before the iPhone. People did NOT use the web to the extent it has been, before the iPhone came out. How you can not agree with this baffles me. Again EDGE network (2G) had nothing to do with it, because it worked. If anything it made AT&T push there 3G network faster, and of course with every new carrier to have the iPhone, same thing happened. Droid didn't exist pre iPhone. If it did, where the heck was it? And more importantly, did they patent it?
Your right in that the iPhone didn't have everything right out of the gate. Everything meaning, everything we currently have now. It doesn't even have everything now, it will always continue to evolve and have more features, uses, etc. But that was true before the iPhone as well on every other phone out there. However, each new phone gave the user something new, better, whatever over the previous. And most importantly to sell the customer something new. Each new feature being something we wanted or needed was added to the next version of the iOS or model iPhone. Same for any other product all over the world. Main point being the iPhone was the pinnacle for mobile devices of its time. Which gave the user the most they have had to date in a device that now seems "obvious" and works in the most obvious of ways for many things to many people. So much so that it was copied (style), and in features or in the innovation from its underling OS. If you don't believe that ask the courts.
As for flat screens, social networks, all mute points. How many TV makers actually make the LCD? Or the components inside the TV itself? The chips, the circuits, the backlighting, or the glass even. I'm pretty sure not too many do. Pioneer doesn't make a TV/LCD. But, the sure sell them. Most likely a Samsung LCD or SONY, or LG. With circuit parts from Intel, Motorola, Hitachi, or TSMC, or IDK for that matter. They pay a license for whatever part they use, and sell it with there name on it and all is well in the world. Most of this would fall under some kind of FRAND licensing. As there is only so many ways to make a TV. If they wanted to make it from scratch they are free to do so, so long as they don't copy someone else's design (square not being one of them). But, look and style is!
Social media (Myspace/Facebook) Again, similar ideas done differently. Targeting different audiences, doing different things. I can't code my Facebook page like I can my myspace page. I don't have music playing on my Facebook page like I can on myspace page. I can find friends though, or link to message on there page, and photo's. But, I"m sure there are many ways to do these similar things without copying someone else's way of doing it. Similar is not the same as "Exactly" the same. Do it differently, and no one will complain about it. I don't know of any Myspace lawsuits to Facebook or vice versa, to any other site that had this social network in mind. Of which there were tons, in various formats since the net started. And again, if any company copied another in any way shape or form. The copied company has a right to protect their patents (if they had any).
This goes for any industry. And again, if all you have is an opinion, its not fact and its not law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Early_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
I did say "correct me if I am wrong" but, in any event. I believe I remember hearing that was to be the case. The next OS for Blackberry was going to be an early Android OS. Again, that could have been speculation or worked on, I don't know for 100% certainly. But, in either event. Apple came out with the iPhone first.
The web ROCKED on the iPhone. That was not in question. If your going to limit its abilities to just the fact that it ran on an EDGE network, well so did pretty much every other phone out there (or speed range for there respective networks). There wasn't anything like it before. Hence the praise it received from reviewers, and of course paramount to its success at the time, and since.
Even when Flash became an issue that was attempted to be fixed by including it with Googles Android OS (application to be downloaded to phone). It's not been pretty apparent that Steve Jobs rant proved to be 100% correct. That Flash sucked on mobile devices. Hence why Adobe is not going to support it after this August. And everything will move to HTML5 as the standard for replacement that currently uses Flash on the web.
So, I'm not making stuff up. If I am not sure, I'll say so. But, when I am I'll back that up. If I am wrong, I'll accept it and add that to my collective knowledge on any subject.
The very short section on the Android Wikipedia article doesn't state anything that supports your claim that Android was developed as the new OS for BB, in fact, the quote from Andy Rubin suggest that it was always intended to be independent.
You're completely wrong when you say pretty much every phone only had EDGE in 2007. 3G had been around for years, it was well established (well, maybe not in the US) and was considered a defining feature of a smartphone, pretty much every smartphone in 2007 had it.
EDGE is only good enough for WAP, so the iPhone's full HTML5 browsing SUCKED unless you were near a WiFi network you had access to, which isn't exactly the point of a cell phone.