Ban on Galaxy Nexus U.S. Sales Upheld, Software Patch to Circumvent Forthcoming

[Renzatic]

Why does Apple assume that Google is intentionally infringing on software patents? They should realize that with the sheer amount of software modules being coded, nobody can know for sure which patents they might be violating and it would stop innovation COLD if you had to check every function against the entire patent library. This system SUCKS and has to be reformed!!!

Herein lies the base problem with the software patent system. All these companies are playing with a language that, while broad, still offers up a select set of functions. Much like any language, you can only define a statement using so many combination of words and phrases.

It's like "She sells sea shells by the seashore" is patented, so you have to say "She markets mollusks by the beach" to avoid being sued.

...unless someone has that patented as well. Eventually you're going to run out of ways to say what you want to say, and you'll have to pay someone money to say it.

At some point, someone completely unaware they're doing so, will infringe on someone else's software patent. After all, how many different ways can you tell a computer to do various amounts of things you expect a computer to do via a set of publicly available programming languages and APIs?

And even worse, there's no easy way for a programmer to find out if his particular method of performing an action has been previous patented or not. Plus the vagaries of the sofware patent system make it so that something that seems to be completely unrelated to what you're doing is suddenly relevant due to the wording within the patent itself.

It's screwed up. Stupid. And kinda dumb.

 

[roasted]

So I wonder how it works when you win an injunction pending a full court battle but in the interim, your competitor patches their software to avoid infringement. I imagine the infringer has to petition the court to relax the injunction and if so, I would imagine that Apple gets their bond money back and then drops the case. It seems this would be resolved way before the actual case is fully decided.

If so, that is great for Apple. They get to protect their IP and not have to risk $96M bond to enforce the injunction. I know that when Samsung and Apple battled it out in Germany that Samsung had to propose multiple alternate designs for Galaxy Tab before the courts lifted the ban.

I think the #1 thing that Apple wants here is for their products to be distinctive in the market place -- that means enforcing the ease-of-use/user-experience patents they hold as well as their trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple makes their money on having distinctive products so its no wonder they so vehemently defend their IP.

Stop kidding yourself. Apple is being schoolyard bully here. Early on I had a soft spot for them with certain cases, but anymore hearing about these cases just gets. so. damn. old.

Hopefully someday we'll get smart and rewrite the patent system. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[isoft7]

I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

 

[Oletros]

Every engineer and company understands that they must do this searching.

If engineers has to search every function they code against the patent database they won't develop nothing

 

[Renzatic]

Hopefully someday we'll get smart and rewrite the patent system. Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It doesn't need to be redone so much as the patent office should do their due diligence. They should always assume a patent is guilty until proven innocent, and the patentee should have to go out of their way to convince the office it's truly a unique implementation of a concept.

Though in a best case scenario, software wouldn't be patentable at all. At the very most, it should be copyrighted.

...though that could be abused, too.

 

[faroZ06]

I sold my iPhone 4S Monday because of this law suit... not that it matters to anyone but I finally had enough, I have decided to show my dissapointment with Apple by no longer using their product.

For now I'm using an old Android phone but plan to buy an off contract SIII or Galaxy Nexus.

I can't be the only one to react this way.

That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me. If Microsoft makes a good OS, I will use it.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

 

[Sensation]

So once again Apple wasting more money on stupid law suit. Good job Google and Samsung, Apple are scared of the pure dominance of Android.

 

[Renzatic]

That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Not really. It's called voting with your wallet. If you like the products a company makes, but don't like the actions the company performs outside of those products, you can take a moral stand against them and buy the competitors product instead.

Fanboyism is more like "I use iOS because Android is dumb and it crashes all the time and all Android fans is stupid cuz if they weren't stupid they'd use iOS olol".

 

[tninety]

That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

If you don't support a company's business practices, it's perfectly reasonable to stop buying from them, and not necessarily fanboyism. Selling your Apple products because you don't like their aggressive abuse of the patent system is like not going to Chick-fil-a because they donate to anti-gay organizations.

 

[faroZ06]

Not really. It's called voting with your wallet. If you like the products a company makes, but don't like the actions the company performs outside of those products, you can take a moral stand against them and buy the competitors product instead.

That sounds more like passion than logical decisions. If I think a company should be hammered, I will only stop buying their products if others are helping by also boycotting. In fact, I personally would just buy anyway since it doesn't make a difference. Trying to take down Apple by denying them $500 is not a smart move.

----------

If you don't support a company's business practices, it's perfectly reasonable to stop buying from them, and not necessarily fanboyism. Selling your Apple products because you don't like their aggressive abuse of the patent system is like not going to Chick-fil-a because they donate to anti-gay organizations.

If you like the iPhone more, getting rid of it hurts you more than it hurts Apple. Even wanting to hurt a company is fanboyism unless it's part of your business. If you're a consumer, buy what you want. Leave the competition to the executives.

Also, I can't even generate an opinion about Apple's legal practices because I don't know the full details about the patents. The article did not do much explaining. I can only make a guess based on the fact that the court ruled in Apple's favor, possibly meaning that their complaint was legitimate. Either way, it doesn't matter, and I don't care who is suing who. If Microsoft sues The Salvation Army, I'm not throwing my XBOX away.

 

[mrfrosty]

That is called "fanboyism", which some people also do. You're choosing your product based on company pride, not the actual usefulness of the product for you.

Even Microsoft-haters have the XBOX. Less of those have the XBOX 360, though. I think Microsoft is a horrible company, and I do assume that stuff they make will suck because of their record of making bad products, but I will still choose to use some of their stuff if it's useful for me. If Microsoft makes a good OS, I will use it.

You can't get mad every time there is a lawsuit. If there are patents being explicitly violated, which I am not saying is true here, the device should be blocked. I don't know enough details about the patents, and you haven't shown that you do, so I am not going to say whether or not the device should be blocked.

I don't think it's fanboyism at all. More likely they are dumping a company from a moralistic point of view, I guess they just don't like the way they are conducting their business. Of course the grass is no greener anywhere else but I just feel as the dominant player apple should cut the deals to stop this, it's to the detriment of all it's customers. The only thing that will come of this will be public opinion will turn against apple. No one likes a bully, everyone likes an underdog. History is repeating itself only this time he boot is on the other foot. I think Tim is showing weak leadership in letting this continue.

 

[faroZ06]

I don't think it's fanboyism at all. More likely they are dumping a company from a moralistic point of view, I guess they just don't like the way they are conducting their business. Of course the grass is no greener anywhere else but I just feel as the dominant player apple should cut the deals to stop this, it's to the detriment of all it's customers. The only thing that will come of this will be public opinion will turn against apple. No one likes a bully, everyone likes an underdog. History is repeating itself only this time he boot is on the other foot. I think Tim is showing weak leadership in letting this continue.

It's not a real issue until it appears on the news stations. And I guess I'm not "everyone" since I generally ignore a company's success when rooting/booing. I don't care if Fisker is the underdog carmaker; it still sucks.

 

[Renzatic]

That sounds more like passion than logical decisions. If I think a company should be hammered, I will only stop buying their products if others are helping by also boycotting. In fact, I personally would just buy anyway since it doesn't make a difference. Trying to take down Apple by denying them $500 is not a smart move.

It's a personal thing. And really, denying Apple your money over a bunch of lawsuit BS is jumping the gun a bit, because they're no less guilty than any other tech company out there. They're all pretty ******* sue crazy these days.

But what if Apple did something you really didn't like. Like dude guy's quote up above, where buying some of Chik-Fil-A's tasty chicken meant profit for them, which they'd use to donate to keep some gay guy from getting a job at a supermarket somewhere. Or if you want a really extreme hyperbolistic example, Apple using their profits earned off their hardware and the App Store to support thrill killing starving foreign kids with mortar shells for fun? Would you want to give them your money? Would you want to support that, even by proxy?

It's a moral stance. Even if your $500 won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, you yourself aren't giving them the okay to use your money for something you don't approve of.

 

[Oletros]

Don't forget to convert all of the AAC files to MP3 first!

Why they have to be converted? They play fine.

 

[faroZ06]

It's a personal thing. And really, denying Apple your money over a bunch of lawsuit BS is jumping the gun a bit, because they're no less guilty than any other tech company out there. They're all pretty ******* sue crazy these days.

But what if Apple did something you really didn't like. Like dude guy's quote up above, where buying some of Chik-Fil-A's tasty chicken meant profit for them, which they'd use to donate to keep some gay guy from getting a job at a supermarket somewhere. Or if you want a really extreme hyperbolistic example, Apple using their profits earned off their hardware and the App Store to support thrill killing starving foreign kids with mortar shells for fun? Would you want to give them your money? Would you want to support that?

It's a moral stance. Even if your $500 won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, you yourself aren't giving them the okay to use your money for something you don't approve of.

There is a difference between choosing the company based on legal battles and choosing it based on horrible practices. If I buy a product from Apple as it is using its money to nuke countries, some of my money is being used to kill/harm people. If Apple is suing, some of my money is going to waste. Actually, it's creating jobs for lawyers.

Also, taking a company action as a "personal thing" is fanboyism. You shouldn't have a company that you just root for unless it is for your own gain (if you work for it, own stock, or think its success will otherwise help you).

----------

Why they have to be converted? They play fine.

Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

 

[Uncle David]

Yeah, he screwed up in a big bad way. It's something you think they'd pick up in testing, too. I mean it happens so...freaking...often when the antenna is exposed, I'm honestly surprised they didn't.

As I recall, the answer was that in order to keep the prototypes secret they were always in a case. That's why none of the real-world testing revealed the problem.

 

[faroZ06]

As I recall, the answer was that in order to keep the prototypes secret they were always in a case. That's why none of the real-world testing revealed the problem.

That's an interesting piece of information.

 

[ChazUK]

Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

Which sources and tutorials are they then?

 

[FakeWozniak]

Apple spent millions to make this happen. Google answers with a patch.

Samsung spent millions to make this happen. They have to pay legal fees. Also, the courts are keeping score. When they see an established pattern of patent abuse, they get pretty good at leveling the scales of justice.

 

[Renzatic]

There is a difference between choosing the company based on legal battles and choosing it based on horrible practices. If I buy a product from Apple as it is using its money to nuke countries, some of my money is being used to kill/harm people. If Apple is suing, some of my money is going to waste.

Yeah, which is why I said dude getting his panties in a wad over Apple suing the competition is jumping the gun a bit. If you're buying a cell phone, you're supporting a company that's probably sued another company over something really damn stupid twenty times over. They're all cheesy bastards.

Actually, it's creating jobs for lawyers.

...which is actually the worst thing anyone can ever do ever. Wait until you have to deal with a lawyer. Even the ones you hired with your own damn money, the ones who are supposedly on your side, you just...really...so bad...want to punch them in the head as hard as you can.

Also, taking a company action as a "personal thing" is fanboyism. You shouldn't have a company that you just root for unless it is for your own gain (if you work for it, own stock, or think its success will otherwise help you).

Not really, and for the reasons I've stated above. You might like what a company makes, but don't support what they do outside of that. Even if you don't necessarily see the point in getting worked up over it, someone else has. And they're doing something about it by not buying their stuff.

It's their decision.

Fanboyism, on the other hand, is more a kneejerk reaction against a company because they've sided with the other guy, and nothing this company ever says or does is right in their mind. It's herd mentality BS.

 

[Oletros]

Then my sources are wrong. I looked it up and found tutorials saying that you must convert to MP3 first. Of course, DRM-locked files will definitely not work, but that's not an issue for many people, including me.

Nearly all the players play AAC files, even WP7 phones

 

[gpat]

The patent system is a farce.

 

[The Man]

I'm done with iOS hardware. I will continue to use and purchase OS X, but will now proceed to sell all 3 iPads my family owns and this evening I am taking away all of the 6-8 iPods from my wife and children. In return, I will be buying them the Nexus 7 tablets and Galaxy Nexus phones imported in to the US for a marginally higher price.

So stupid. You think Nokia doesn't protect and sue? Motorola doesn't protect and sue? HTC doesn't protect and sue? Microsoft doesn't protect and sue? Samsung doesn't protect and sue? All these companies are suing each other, but Apple is always in the spotlight.

Heck Microsoft probably gets more money from their patents used in Android than Google gets from Android. The difference is, all these companies that infringe Apple patents want to play hardball because Apple are the biggest competitor. That's their game: To make Apple look like the bad guy.

P.S. Apple had to pay Creative for infringing their music player user interface used in iPods. Everybody plays the game. Did people boycot Creative because of it?

People are also not boycotting Samsung or Motorola for abusing FRAND licensing. People are very selective. It's all so emotional.

 

[BvizioN]

All i can say to the people who comes up with babycry comments like "I'm selling my iOS devices, i had enough" like anyone really gives a rats *ss..... is...Get a life, a good one. It's lot more worth than a stupid phone.

 

[hot spare]

Well yes, I could certainly produce a more finely polished post if I were to have the time and butthurt-ness to go back and re-edit my posts. Seriously though, good job this second time around. You win, tiger. I'm going to bed but please keep fine tuning the post, I'll check tomorrow to see how well you did. 'Night dear

Typical loser..Must be a family trait! Apple family