Sidebar Sidebar
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

Okay, I see a problem with this now. This will cause an all out war across the board. Now a lot of companies hold patents that, if infringing and NOT FRAND, then Apple could be in trouble.


The funny thing is that Apple can't play a fair game. Instead of competing, they sue or injunct. Aside from the iPhone, Apple is going to have a really hard time competing with other companies and this is the ONLY reason why Apple keeps going to court.


What Apple ultimately wants to do is, well, make a product with no competition and only release a few updates each year whilst maximizing profit. Android hinders that goal.
 
AidenShaw said:
...big assumption that Apple's patents are valid....
Click to expand...

We'll see. But so far, out of 50+ lawsuits, Apple has landed the biggest blows. Samsung has two of the largest patent litigation firms on Earth going after a really simple design patent and has struck out, so far, in front of four judges.
 
linkgx1 said:
What Apple ultimately wants to do is, well, make a product with no competition and only release a few updates each year whilst maximizing profit. Android hinders that goal.
Click to expand...

Yep, Android sure is hindering Apple from maximising profit.
 
thewap said:
and especially if it infringes Microsoft's patents..
Click to expand...

True, but that issue almost doesn't matter any more, given how much of the Android ecosystem is paying royalties to Microsoft -- HTC, Foxconn, Wistron, Acer, Samsung, Quanta, Compal, LG, etc.....
 
Kurwenal said:
OK, I'll just quote them..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

be7c46a1-04c5-f7c3.jpg
 
Kurwenal said:
True, but that issue almost doesn't matter any more, given how much of the Android ecosystem is paying royalties to Microsoft -- HTC, Foxconn, Wistron, Acer, Samsung, Quanta, Compal, LG, etc.....
Click to expand...

you never know with that pesky Samsung co....:p
 
thewap said:
wouldn't that be the difference between trademarks and patents?
Click to expand...

You may be correct. I haven't looked at that.

Chlloret said:
You mean when Apple records sued becaus Apple Computer inc was going to market and sell music?
Hmmm.
True, difficould to make a connection there........

Btw, Apple is not having a design patent on a rectangle. Look into it and you see.
Click to expand...

I know they don't have a patent on a rectangle. They just act like they do and many here believe they do.

gnasher729 said:
You are getting childish now.
Click to expand...

I've read 40+ pages of posts in this thread. If I'm childish, the majority here are still in their first trimester.
 
Rocketman said:
Aiden, you're so snooty. :) I bet they didn't need reservations.

Appeals court refuses rehearing on Proposition 8

I think it hinges on the 10th amendment. The people of a state have spoken. As I pointed out to you a year or more ago, start a new path. Simply call it something else and admit to your opponents you are perfectly willing to agree "marriage" is a reserved word. The zealots are in the vast majority.

They don't object to what you do, they object your trying to conflate it with what they do. Messaging is the key. Listen to . . . . .

Rocketman

Ask your friends if they would like to earn 3% with me in the mean time.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? If I'm reading this correctly, which I may not be, then you're completely ridiculous.
 
The biggest problem with all of this from the beginning is that Google et. al. want to basically use the glass face touchscreen phone with a widget interface like it's a comprehensive FRAND licensed standard and Apple never put that out there to be used as a comprehensive standard for "Touchscreen" mobile phones (which didn't exist before the iPhone.)

Also, most judges whether they ruled in Apple's favor or not in all of the various cases have said there's IP infringement they just essentially said that Apple couldn't prove that the infringement was adversely affecting their business. (The dumbest component of business law...infringement at the end of the day is theft and it should be treated as theft.)

Truth be told if Apple could have manufactured it's phones from top to bottom with companies that didn't manufacture and sell phones themselves and if the government hadn't interfered with the anti-poaching agreements tech companies had in place there would be no iPod knockoff industry simply for lack of leaked information.
 
Imhotep397 said:
The biggest problem with all of this from the beginning is that Google et. al. want to basically use the glass face touchscreen phone with a widget interface like it's a comprehensive FRAND licensed standard and Apple never put that out there to be used as a comprehensive standard for "Touchscreen" mobile phones (which didn't exist before the iPhone.)

Also, most judges whether they ruled in Apple's favor or not in all of the various cases have said there's IP infringement they just essentially said that Apple couldn't prove that the infringement was adversely affecting their business. (The dumbest component of business law...infringement at the end of the day is theft and it should be treated as theft.)

Truth be told if Apple could have manufactured it's phones from top to bottom with companies that didn't manufacture and sell phones themselves and if the government hadn't interfered with the anti-poaching agreements tech companies had in place there would be no iPod knockoff industry simply for lack of leaked information.
Click to expand...

So the iPhone was the first touchscreen cell phone? Interesting.
 
AidenShaw said:
Two more links, and still nothing whatsoever to support your original claim that



And had to laugh out loud at the statement in the first link that "Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt sat across from each other in some sort of upscale shopping mall" - Town and Country Village is a rather tacky, well-worn 50 year old strip mall. Pleasant enough, but not upscale. ("Upscale" would be the Stanford Shopping Center or Santana Row....)
Click to expand...

Back from a fresh Strawberry Sundae.

Ok Aiden. This will be my last post. I was hoping to avoid this, as not everyone has read the book. But you are, shall we say, of a preset outcome on this.

So, open Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. If you want the BIG PICTURE p.511 paragraph 1 to p. 513. To simply say, sorry, I was mistaken p. 512 paragraph 3. There is a nice quote between 2 and 3.

Eric referring to Steve's assertions as "perceptions" was the BS. At that Coffee Shop Eric had the chance to stop. He took a different path. The dagger is now in Google with the Nexus Injunction. I hope Bruce Sewell twists it for months. :apple:
 
Glideslope said:
Sorry Rod, but your being influenced by the Decepticons.

In this meeting Steve tried to get Eric from copying information gained from his time on the BOD. No agreement was reached, the rest is fairly straight forward. Also spare me the Fanboy Bologna. I disagree with many APPL decisions. This subject however, I have no doubts.

http://www.redmondpie.com/steve-job...et-for-coffee-plans-world-domination-9140570/
Click to expand...

My god. He wore black socks with the jeans and turtleneck??
 
bedifferent said:
I am curious (and I like your points lol), what went down between Jobs and Schmidt after Eric was removed from Apple's BoD's as his position with Google was [supposedly] compromising Apple's work? I always thought Schmidt's position with Apple was odd given his position with Google.
Click to expand...

It seems probable that Jobs invited Schmidt to the Apple board in late 2006, in the middle of iPhone development, for a couple of major reasons:

1) Apple realized it needed Google help that would be important to the initial success of the iPhone in 2007. E.g. Search, Maps, YouTube, Location.

2) Jobs knew Google bought Android in 2005. This way he could not only perhaps get some inside info, but more importantly, he hoped that he could sway Google from deploying anything similar to the iPhone.

Schmidt, wanting to be Jobs' friend, and of course wanting to avoid any legal problems, has stated that he kept himself apart from the Android project the entire time he was on the Apple board. (This reportedly caused some delays in the Android project since Schmidt had been its main champion at Google.)

No one at Apple has ever even slightly accused Schmidt of doing anything wrong while on the board. By 2009, though, Schmidt was pretty useless on the board since he began to skip any meetings about the iPhone or iPad. So he left. At that time, Jobs issued this statement:

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

It would be another six months before Jobs publicly got angry at Google: that was when an HTC phone came out in early 2010 with multi-touch enabled, I believe. Part of that anger was apparently caused by Jobs actually believing that Apple had a patent on multi-touch. (I wonder which of his staff told him that!)

Yet despite all the "thermonuclear war" talk in his biography, and speeches about "not wanting money", Apple continued to make Google the default search in iOS, continued to take search kickbacks, and even extended the deal.

Since Jobs was such a showman, I do sometimes wonder how much of all that was just typical bluster to get attention.
 
DeathChill said:
Wait, what? If I'm reading this correctly, which I may not be, then you're completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I am not the one losing votes and lawsuits, so at minimum I am "less rediculous".

I have always proposed a path going forward. I suggested it be parallel, but now the time has come for serial or nothing.

And for clarity the first part of my post was tongue in cheek about the restaurant meeting, and the second part was a political strategy memo, and the third was an open ended suggestion.

Rocketman
 
Rocketman said:
I am not the one losing votes and lawsuits, so at minimum I am "less rediculous".

I have always proposed a path going forward. I suggested it be parallel, but now the time has come for serial or nothing.

And for clarity the first part of my post was tongue in cheek about the restaurant meeting, and the second part was a political strategy memo, and the third was an open ended suggestion.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap if gay people want to get married? I don't care if you disagree with Aiden (in fact, I disagree with 99% of what he says), but saying something like that is ridiculously out-of-line.
 
Kurwenal said:
We'll see. But so far, out of 50+ lawsuits, Apple has landed the biggest blows. Samsung has two of the largest patent litigation firms on Earth going after a really simple design patent and has struck out, so far, in front of four judges.
Click to expand...

Curious, which four judges? The judges involved in possible Tab design decisions (off the top of my head - and I'm tired - so please correct me) have been:

Netherlands - judge pointed out that much of the EU Design was functional (rounded corners, flat screen) and thus was not protectable design, but did not rule on it.

Dusseldorf judges - ruled that the EU Design Registration was valid and issued an injunction on the Tab 10.1.

Another German court later ruled that the modified Tab 10.1N was okay.

Australia injunction on Tab - had nothing to do with design.

California (Koh) - initially ruled that the design patent was likely invalid due to prior art.

Any others?

Thanks!
 
DeathChill said:
Who gives a crap if gay people want to get married? I don't care if you disagree with Aiden (in fact, I disagree with 99% of what he says), but saying something like that is ridiculously out-of-line.
Click to expand...
They do?!? I listen to Aiden and don't disregard his view no matter how I feel. And I am not clear how your view is either rational or important.

Besides that, now we're both off-topic and if Aiden or anyone else cared enough about my topic(s) he would contact me offlist anyway.

Rocketman
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back