Well for now, no new mobile. Not buying something new on their ideal 1-2 year life cycle is voting with my wallet just as much as buying a competitors product. I will keep my phone jailbroken and in service as long as I can manage and then review my options at a later point. If they change their ways I wont hold an action from 2 years ago against a company no more than I would want someone to hold a grudge against me after so long.
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
Well for now, no new mobile. Not buying something new on their ideal 1-2 year life cycle is voting with my wallet just as much as buying a competitors product. I will keep my phone jailbroken and in service as long as I can manage and then review my options at a later point. If they change their ways I wont hold an action from 2 years ago against a company no more than I would want someone to hold a grudge against me after so long.
I am a long time Apple guy....
And my new Android phone is in the mail.
I am no longer willing to support this and will not replacing my iPhone 4 with whatever the next iPhone is. I don't care how cool it is. I do not support companies with thermonuclear vendettas or that fear of honest competition.
Apple makes fine products, and I own many of them. But I have also seen the writing on the wall. Mac OSX, which I love and have owned five different high end systems for, is on the verge of becoming a locked down walled garden like iOS and my days have been numbered for a while. I am beginning my migration out. I will continue to use my new iPad and my Macs...but when they are end of life it is likely that I am gone.
Apple is simply no longer a company that this former Apple Fanboi feels good about.
And my new Android phone is in the mail.
I am no longer willing to support this and will not replacing my iPhone 4 with whatever the next iPhone is. I don't care how cool it is. I do not support companies with thermonuclear vendettas or that fear of honest competition.
Apple makes fine products, and I own many of them. But I have also seen the writing on the wall. Mac OSX, which I love and have owned five different high end systems for, is on the verge of becoming a locked down walled garden like iOS and my days have been numbered for a while. I am beginning my migration out. I will continue to use my new iPad and my Macs...but when they are end of life it is likely that I am gone.
Apple is simply no longer a company that this former Apple Fanboi feels good about.
I think I'm going to do the same. I love apple products but they're trying to stifle competition.
+1
Attachments
Google and Samsung only used those frand patents as leverage to get apple do back down on the injunctions and do a cross licensing deal. The problem is apple isn't interested in cross licensing. They want to eliminate the competition. Thats all there is to it. They want to be the only phone you can buy.
----------
My blackberry's and windows mobile phones had that functionality years before the iphone even came out.
I said I think. Now I'm starting to realise maybe I should think about it harder. You're deflecting the question again.
Stop deflecting, what four rulings by what four judges in what lawsuits are you referring to ? Were there even 4 rulings or are you using judge count to inflate your statistics about the design suits ?
Nope, instead you deflect on some semantics about the Appellate court instead of Appeal's court. I hope you had fun with your terminology.
If this is how I can always expect you to reply, definitely tell me now so I can move you to ignore right now instead of studying the question a bit more. You did the same last time, you changed the subject mid discussion.
----------
Fixed that there for you. No seriously, it works both ways.
Andy Rubin has been doing mobile OSes since 1998 and had shipping devices (Hip Top) in 2002 before leaving Danger Inc. to found Android. That's 9 years prior to the iPhone. A lot of what is in Android is Rubin's ideas and design, don't you think like Apple, Rubin has other sources of inspirations ?
No of course not, that can't be. Only Apple employees can have ideas, everyone else out there just copies.
Except using FRAND patents as leverage defeats the purpose of FRAND agreements.
Are you implying that Apple should be forced to license their technology?
Good lord. Read much?
OK, here's a deal: you go quote where I said "four rulings by four judges." If you can find it, I will leave MR. If you can't, you leave. Deal?
What I did say is this:
And I have already identified the four judges, by name. Scroll up.
You missed the point. There is no such thing as an Appeal's court -- unless the appeals own the court.
Have you actually read the patent in question about searching multiple databases. Apple was not the only one to have thought of that and they were hardly the first. The patent is far to vague to patentable.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about the validity of any of the patents in question.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/16/apple-vs-google-inside-an-android-patent-violation/
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-android-phones-are-being-banned-from-the-us-next-year
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19744/apple_beats_motorola_over_iphone_patent_in_android
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/apple-wins-german-injunction-against.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/android-devices-have-already-been-found.html
http://gizmodo.com/5869507/htc-android-phones-are-being-banned-from-the-us-next-year
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19744/apple_beats_motorola_over_iphone_patent_in_android
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/apple-wins-german-injunction-against.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/android-devices-have-already-been-found.html
This.
Back in the 80's Apple really believed in standing up to the man... Hence the famous ad in 1984 with the swinging sledge hammer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
Almost 30 years later, it seems the apple fans are those same brainwashed individuals in that video and Google is the monkey wrench. That's some major Irony!
Quote:
Originally Posted by djphat2000
Do you know of any patents that Google has of which Apple has clearly violated? Or do you just say Google had it first, so they must own it? Same would hold true for Apple. Did they make something before Google, or copied it? Did Google patent the idea or did Apple? I'm looking for facts. I think your looking to prove Apple wrong on this. Which is fine, so long as its factually based. As it pertains to this case of Apple vs Samsung. Apple is winning this round. Could change, may change, may not.
Can you point where I said nothing about Apple infringing patents? Please, point me where I said that
Don't say the courts? So, basically if I have proof don't talk about it? If a court of law says its so, don't mention that? I'm not talking about whatever your talking about apparently. So, i'll leave it at this. I don't recall saying that you said nothing about Apple infringing patents. I don't know where you said that.
I read exactly what I want to read. I don't let people force my eyes open to read things I don't want to. your correct!
Please look at the links provided above. But, alas that's a waste of time as I can't point to anything that actually "is".
I'll state before mis-whatevered later. That many of these cases are still going on. And not done yet. Things can change. I'm just stating what I know currently.
Originally Posted by djphat2000
Do you know of any patents that Google has of which Apple has clearly violated? Or do you just say Google had it first, so they must own it? Same would hold true for Apple. Did they make something before Google, or copied it? Did Google patent the idea or did Apple? I'm looking for facts. I think your looking to prove Apple wrong on this. Which is fine, so long as its factually based. As it pertains to this case of Apple vs Samsung. Apple is winning this round. Could change, may change, may not.
Can you point where I said nothing about Apple infringing patents? Please, point me where I said that
Don't say the courts? So, basically if I have proof don't talk about it? If a court of law says its so, don't mention that? I'm not talking about whatever your talking about apparently. So, i'll leave it at this. I don't recall saying that you said nothing about Apple infringing patents. I don't know where you said that.
I read exactly what I want to read. I don't let people force my eyes open to read things I don't want to. your correct!
Please look at the links provided above. But, alas that's a waste of time as I can't point to anything that actually "is".
I'll state before mis-whatevered later. That many of these cases are still going on. And not done yet. Things can change. I'm just stating what I know currently.
So you inflated by using judge count, because rulings count didn't get your point accross. Got it. Now answer my other question, will you always deflect and play semantic games ?
You know that Florian Mueller is a paid consultat from Oracle and Microsoft, don't you?
His opinions are totally biased and, in most cases, totally wrong
----------
I'll state before mis-whatevered later. That many of these cases are still going on. And not done yet. Things can change. I'm just stating what I know currently.
You're stating nothing, you have claimde that Andorid is a total rip off of iOS and this is false.
Some of us have asked any single proof and you doesn't have provided a sh...
So you won't take my deal. Telling.
I said:
That statement is 100% accurate. How is it inflated?
Of all those junky links, that one caught my eye:
"Android devices have violated 11 Microsoft and Apple patents"
Apple has also been found to violate Nokia, Motorola, and Samsung patents.
Not to mention that all of them ended up having to pay for Visual Voice Mail and other such patents.
Considering all the lines of code and features, it's amazing the count on all sides is so low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djphat2000
They changed it (it was supposed to be a clone of some other mobile phone OS).., to that of what "We claim, and Apple in some cases here..." ends up being a copy of the iPhone. Look and feel, exact features aside. We don't get to make the claims for or against. But, a court does.
I'm only claiming what I said I am claiming. I posted links above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djphat2000
http://androidnewscenter.com/index.p...ry-not-iphone/
I knew I wasn't on crack or some other drug.
Again, not stating this is 100% fact, but I distinctly remember hearing about this version of events.
This is page 23.
----------
True. I'm wondering if they are just milking this process. Like 1 patent or a few at a time. But, in either case. I still believe if they have a right to exercise its use. So be it. That goes for any company.
----------
Does that somehow change the outcome of the cases in court???????
I haven't see you prove anything yet either. So, I guess we are even.
Not have I said that "IT IS" a complete rip off of iOS. I gave my "OPINION", not stating it as FACT or LAW, as in a court has declared such.
Originally Posted by djphat2000
They changed it (it was supposed to be a clone of some other mobile phone OS).., to that of what "We claim, and Apple in some cases here..." ends up being a copy of the iPhone. Look and feel, exact features aside. We don't get to make the claims for or against. But, a court does.
I'm only claiming what I said I am claiming. I posted links above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djphat2000
http://androidnewscenter.com/index.p...ry-not-iphone/
I knew I wasn't on crack or some other drug.
Again, not stating this is 100% fact, but I distinctly remember hearing about this version of events.
This is page 23.
----------
True. I'm wondering if they are just milking this process. Like 1 patent or a few at a time. But, in either case. I still believe if they have a right to exercise its use. So be it. That goes for any company.
----------
Does that somehow change the outcome of the cases in court???????
I haven't see you prove anything yet either. So, I guess we are even.
Not have I said that "IT IS" a complete rip off of iOS. I gave my "OPINION", not stating it as FACT or LAW, as in a court has declared such.
You are correct, he did inflate it by using judge count. Googling the judge's names pointed that out.
I let it go since we were only talking about a single design patent right now. Besides...
That kind of counting can of course cut both ways, since several pro-Apple decisions in other countries by a single judge have also been overruled by multi-judge higher courts.
Inflated what? I said four judges have considered that patent, and in fact four have. You are aware, I presume, that the CAFC hears this type of appeal in panels of three judges, each of whom rules *separately*. On this case, O'Malley even wrote his own, separate opinion.
So, had I said "four courts" or "four countries" it would have been misleading. But, saying "two judges" would have been just plain wrong.
Spin it however you want, but I said four judges and there have, in fact, been four judges.
----------
Care to define "found"?
You are correct, he did inflate it by using judge count. Googling the judge's names pointed that out.
I let it go since we were only talking about a single design patent right now. Besides...
That kind of counting can of course cut both ways, since several pro-Apple decisions in other countries by a single judge have also been overruled by multi-judge higher courts.
Inflate what? I understand your argument if he was comparing rulings to judges, but he wasn't. He made a simple, straightforward claim. KnightWRX was the one that tried to twist it in to something that wasn't said.
Sorry. Just trying to make peace between you two so we can get back to discussions.
You weren't misleading, but it was a way of counting that's almost never used here. And it certainly was chosen to sound more impressive.
I thought it was pretty clever, once you explained it
Cheers.
Sorry. Just trying to make peace between you two so we can get back to discussions.
You weren't misleading, but it was a way of counting that's almost never used here. And it certainly was chosen to sound more impressive.
I thought it was pretty clever, once you explained it
Cheers.
No issue from me, I've found your posts to be among the more thoughtful on this thread. I chose to describe the issue as I typically would in my practice, but I realize that not everyone here is a patent litigator.
Oh well. Want to argue about Coke vs. Pepsi?
That's what I'm saying you're doing. There have been 2 rulings. It doesn't matter how many judges, that's just "spiking the punch bowl" so to say. The fact that Apple already had to appeal a denial is telling of how much they have an uphill battle.
Of your 4 judges (and it's 5 btw by my count, Koh, the 3 judges from the appeal ruling and the Dusseldorf judge), it took 4 of them to issue 1 ruling.
Seems to me Apple's case isn't going as well as you're trying to spin it to be going. They have also faced many setbacks along the way, the Netherlands court being the worse so far (patents invalidated, design registration not convincing the judge, and the single patent ruling they obtained (bounce back on incomplete transition in the Samsung version of Android's photo gallery), Samsung has already taken care of and never had to suffer the injunction ruling).
That is my point, you're making it seem like all of this is going very well for Apple when it fact, it's been rather hit or miss. The only people for whom all this mess is going well is lawyers if you ask me. Consumers suffer because of the preliminary injunctions, Apple and Samsung need to invest in tons of research and spend tons of cash in legal fees, courts are tied up with motion after motion in a big corporate chess game...
So again I ask, are you ready to discuss this without spin, without deflection or can I simply from now own ignore your commentary on the subject ?
Well, I will just say I think it does matter, especially when you consider the purposes for which the Federal Circuit was created, the controlling law that applies to this appeal, and the nature of judicial review in a common law system. I also think it matters because it shows that my statement was accurate.
And it probably matters to the mothers of the judges, as well. But I get that it doesn't matter to you. You are entitled to your opinion. Either way, the point is the same: Samsung has been enjoined, preliminarily, after the patent was found valid, infringed and enforceable. So I guess it matters to Samsung too, and Apple as well. That is true whether 1 judge has ruled, or 100; whether it happened in 1 country, or 100; and whether it happened in 1 opinion, or 100.
Hum, see, that's where you're wrong. The Koh ruling did not find this at all. Otherwise, it would not be a preliminary injunction, it would simply be an injunction.
And you still failed to answer my other question, so now it's true, 3 strikes you're out sorry.