Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All I can say is (5, Insightful)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944916)

Excellent!.

Re:All I can say is (5, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944928)

And all I can add is:

  • there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
  • here's one more piece of solid proof that "IP" is mostly used to stiffle competition and innovation, not to promote it.

Re:All I can say is (4, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944972)

there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and

There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.

Re:All I can say is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945062)

there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and

There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.

Well in that case how big has the nail got to be to completely trash apple for good

Re:All I can say is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946474)

It's not about size, it's about metastasis...

Re:All I can say is (3, Interesting)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945866)

That's why only big companies can use this method against small companies to prevent competition. The other way round is too dangerous for the attacker. However, this shall not be confused with so-called patent trolls, who work on technology patents and not on "design" patents.

Frivolous patents and lawsuits (5, Interesting)

waterbear (190559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945936)

>> "there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits"

> There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.

But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)

The problem is more fundamental: "The grant of invalid patents is a serious evil insomuch as it tends to the restraint of trade and to the embarrassment of honest traders and inventors..."
That was the Fry Committee in 1901, recognizing that fundamental truth. The same applies, of course, to other forms of IP as well, not only patents. But which policymakers and legislators in power remember that now?

-wb-

Re:Frivolous patents and lawsuits (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947228)

But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)

Novell, in SCO v. Novell [groklaw.net]

But that instance is legendary for how the respondent stuck to its defense, and the basic bad faith and scummy practices of the plaintiff.

And it only took 6 1/2 years, from initial complaint to Supreme Court refusing appeal.

So... yeah, at least ONE someone has actually completed the course. It may be the exception, though.

Re:All I can say is (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944986)

There are. If a company is requesting the (temporary) ban on importing or selling a competitor's product, it has to feet the bill if it doesn't prevail in court. Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.

Re:All I can say is (-1, Offtopic)

Darren8100 (2496108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945402)

Great sharing!!one of my friend tell me about this site and i see is really good...... Phoenix cabinets [huntwood.com]

Re:All I can say is (2)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945586)

Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.

But these companies are also competing for market share and getting their foot through the door first. Apple might well buy up all the competitors' products, burn them in a pile and sell their own for several times the price to recover the cost. They're certainly immoral enough to do this and then this arrangement would make it seem like a mistake.

Re:All I can say is (4, Informative)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945628)

No, they don't have to buy anything. They have to pay for the lost sales. I just hope that the German lawsuit falls through for Apple and they actually have to pay a lot. Samsung is no NT-K in volumes and price is comparable to iPad.

Re:All I can say is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945712)

well as they where classed as a 'pirate' company couldnt they claim each unit was a lost sale and claim $250,000 per unit using the 'music' industry product forumale!

Which will help apple further..... (0)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945984)

The tablets don't make much profit, it's the apps users buy that do. If apple buys these and trashes them, they will never ever enter the market and generate revenue. Let apple pay a substantial fee in damages to the company they caused damages to. That, and a very large fine to the Spanish government for filing frivolous lawsuits and anti-competitive actions.

Re:Which will help apple further..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37947028)

The tablets don't make much profit, it's the apps users buy that do. If apple buys these and trashes them, they will never ever enter the market and generate revenue.

I'm impressed. It actually takes effort to misinterpret what the GP meant like that. I mean, seriously. You had to work hard to be that stupid. Well-done, sir.

Re:All I can say is (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945016)

"Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."

Re:All I can say is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946064)

Yeah, because all of this legal action started in the last three weeks. Wake up, this has been Apple's MO since they became big enough that the balance of power moved from them being in favour of openness to them wanting to protect their position. It's not just Apple, it happens with any company that starts off small and trendy and eventually becomes a market leader - even MS were the edgy underdog once.

Re:All I can say is (3, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946222)

No, not really. Bill Gates has been a bit of a douche bag going all the way back to when he was complaining about people copying his implementation of basic while he was still in college. Microsoft has always been a company aimed at market domination and rolling in the fat monopoly rents that domination would create. When they first started out they used to publicly say they wanted to the be the only company in the computer business, which if you think about it, is a completely obnoxious goal to have. Microsoft has always been fundamentally dedicated to being evil*.

* Though Microsoft and it's peons are rarely able to recognize the inherent evil in deliberately trying to limit other people's choices and take money that they don't truly deserve (by using monopoly power to increases prices above what a fair market would settle on).

Re:All I can say is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946714)

"Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."

HAHAHAHAHA Too soon?

Re:All I can say is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37944946)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 2007, a little boy named Timothy was standing in the hallway inside of his house. He then turned towards the place where the hallway connects with his mom's bedroom and spotted a box of graham crackers. This made him realize that there was a new rule in his house: anyone who walks past the box of graham crackers must allow the large black man standing near it to fuck their ass! Then, for some reason, he tried to run past the box of graham crackers and was grabbed by the large black man. The large black man looked at his bootyass naked ass and screamed, "There is no hole!" Timothy then escaped and ran into his mom's closet, and the black man followed. The black man then bumped into a cabbage patch kid in the closet and angered it. Timothy managed to escape outside while the black man's ass was turned into a rumblehouse. Then, Timothy noticed that a close friend of his had his car parked in front of his house and was signaling him to get inside. Timothy did so, and the car took off down the road at great speed while Timothy explained his situation to his friend.

While Timothy was celebrating the fact that he escaped, the car began slowing down; his friend then said, "Now, now, now's the time right now!"

Timothy asked him what he was doing. His friend grinned evilly and replied, "What slowness can I offer you? I'm copyright owner Madow!" and turned into an old man wearing a butler's outfit.

The car continued to slow down, and the cabbage patch kid was catching up to them. Timothy then got out of the car (since he could run faster than it was moving) and began running. However, what seemed to be an invisible entity lifted him into the air and thrusted him ass-first around the world at a speed greater than the speed of light! Eventually, Timothy's bootyass naked ass crashed directly into the very cabbage patch kid he was trying to escape from! The cabbage patch kid was then sucked into Timothy's ass as if his ass was a spaghetti noodle (just like grandma)! At that point, his ass became a bouncehouse for the cabbage patch kid, and major tickle was inflicted upon it!

Now that you have read this, the very same cabbage patch kid will get sucked right up your ass as if your ass is a spaghetti noodle, and major tickle will be inflicted upon it!

You can prevent this by doing the following: post this comment in three different threads.

Re:All I can say is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945018)

"Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 2007, a little boy named Timothy was standing in the hallway inside of his house. He then turned towards the place where the hallway connects with his mom's bedroom and spotted a box of graham crackers. This made him realize that there was a new rule in his house: anyone who walks past the box of graham crackers must allow the large black man standing near it to fuck their ass! Then, for some reason, he tried to run past the box of graham crackers and was grabbed by the large black man. The large black man looked at his bootyass naked ass and screamed, "There is no hole!" Timothy then escaped and ran into his mom's closet, and the black man followed. The black man then bumped into a cabbage patch kid in the closet and angered it. Timothy managed to escape outside while the black man's ass was turned into a rumblehouse. Then, Timothy noticed that a close friend of his had his car parked in front of his house and was signaling him to get inside. Timothy did so, and the car took off down the road at great speed while Timothy explained his situation to his friend.

While Timothy was celebrating the fact that he escaped, the car began slowing down; his friend then said, "Now, now, now's the time right now!"

Timothy asked him what he was doing. His friend grinned evilly and replied, "What slowness can I offer you? I'm copyright owner Madow!" and turned into an old man wearing a butler's outfit.

The car continued to slow down, and the cabbage patch kid was catching up to them. Timothy then got out of the car (since he could run faster than it was moving) and began running. However, what seemed to be an invisible entity lifted him into the air and thrusted him ass-first around the world at a speed greater than the speed of light! Eventually, Timothy's bootyass naked ass crashed directly into the very cabbage patch kid he was trying to escape from! The cabbage patch kid was then sucked into Timothy's ass as if his ass was a spaghetti noodle (just like grandma)! At that point, his ass became a bouncehouse for the cabbage patch kid, and major tickle was inflicted upon it!

Now that you have read this, the very same cabbage patch kid will get sucked right up your ass as if your ass is a spaghetti noodle, and major tickle will be inflicted upon it!

You can prevent this by doing the following: post this comment in three different threads."

Re:All I can say is (4, Informative)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947006)

Too bad that this is mostly bullshit: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/translation-and-explanation-of-spanish.html [blogspot.com]

Based on what the document says, I think the implications of this case for Apple's enforcement of its design-related rights are probably much less wide-ranging than it initially appeared. It seems that even in Spain Apple could still assert its iPad design-related rights under civil law. Also, the nature of Apple's involvement may have been limited to that of an initial complainant (who according to nt-k also filed an indictment) as opposed to that of a party litigating a case all the way through. That's what my sources say, and it's possible.

IOW Apple didn't lose the case because they weren't really involved.

Re:All I can say is (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947316)

Well, Florian Mueller's not a lawyer, and I'm not, and I'm pretty sure you're not... but that phrase "initial complainant as opposed to that of a party litigating a case" makes no sense. Does Spanish court procedure allow a party to launch a lawsuit against another and then disengage and let it fly unattended? I'm skeptical. If there's a distinction, it's an irrelevant technical one, and doesn't change anything.

Sorry. Regardless of the legal trickeration, if Apple initiates the lawsuit, and doesn't petition for dismissal, they're the plaintiff. You don't get to say "lol, just trolling" if it doesn't go your way.

The fact that the defendant is countersuing to recover legal expenses tells me that SOMEONE credibly thinks Apple was the active plaintiff in the suit, and the prime actor behind the injunction attempt.

About time ... (2)

slydder (549704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944918)

... that at least 1 judge pulled his/her head out of their ass long enough to see what Apple is doing.

Re:About time ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945058)

Apple is innovating. And it wants to get payed for it.

Imagine you worked YEARS perfecting something, and someone came along and just copied it in FIVE MINUTES without paying you. I guess you would think differently then.

Imagine patents didn't exists: why would any company spending YEARS perfecting something if another company can steal it in just under FIVE MINUTES. Innovation would come to a halt. And everything would be the same gray unimaginative sh*t.

Patents are GOOD as they make companies that innovate get payed for innovating. They only should have a shorter expiration date.

Regarding this case: you should look up why Apple lost the case instead of guessing why.

Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

Re:About time ... (2)

peted56 (1842988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945074)

Yep we pretty much had lots of Nokia phones, what was your point?

Re:About time ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945330)

You just made it, where is Nokia now ?

Re:About time ... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946858)

A lot of people still have Nokia. Oh, i see, you mean all these guys in EU does not count, they are not real, right?

Re:About time ... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947272)

Tethered to to this computer so I can access the net.

Re:About time ... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945100)

You're probably trolling to see if anyone would feed you if you take several sane and right positions and say the exact opposite, but still...

Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

The iPhone was slick in a few ways, but that doesn't mean smartphones wouldn't have gotten slicker without it. Maybe we'd all be running maemo debian gnu/linux on our phones today if it weren't for the iPhone. Instead of a forced walled garden filled at the moral and anti-competitive urges of apple, we'd all be free in a few more ways.

Re:About time ... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945106)

Dang... Where did I put my quote tags? What I meant was for there to be a quoted part, like so:

Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

Re:About time ... (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945118)

You mean, blackberry clones or something like openmoko?

Fact is, everybody copied apple for a reason. It was - and still seems to be - what people wanted. Some history lessons wouldn't hurt, as this is seems to be the pattern for a bit more than 30 years already.

Re:About time ... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945184)

You mean, blackberry clones or something like openmoko?

Fact is, everybody copied apple for a reason. It was - and still seems to be - what people wanted. Some history lessons wouldn't hurt, as this is seems to be the pattern for a bit more than 30 years already.

When I said "maemo debian gnu/linux" I was referring to the operating system named Maemo, which is built on Debian with GNU and the Linux kernel, running since 2005 on the nokia 770 and later updated versions on the n800, n810 and n900, now morphed into Meego on the N9.

Re:About time ... (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945256)

Yes, I know. And I could not care less if the underlying layer is gnu/linux, mach3/nextstep, netBSD or a 32-bit CP/M. Thing is, Linux as a Kernel is a success on phones with Android (not sure about the GNU part though), and is being, and maemo is not because either it was not good enough or the people managing it made it flop, independently of apple.

What I mean is that those products failed on their own merits.

Re:About time ... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945332)

Yes, not so much GNU in the Android.

Nokia sure did mess up royally with Maemo. What I was answering was the comment to think about the before and after of the iPhone. And what I meant was that maybe Maemo would have been the next great thing albeit a bit later if it wasn't for the iPhone (which it should have been despite the iPhone, but Nokia didn't realize what they potentially had). On the other hand, Nokia might have found exiting new ways of missing the opportunity, so speculating in alternate history is kind of pointless.

Anyway... Free as in freedom is the future even if it takes a few more swings of the pendulum to get there.

Re:About time ... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945604)

Yes, not so much GNU in the Android.

Are they using their own compiler to build Android?
I was under the impression that they were using GCC, but I might be wrong.

Re:About time ... (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946422)

Let's hope so. It seems the pendulum is going to the other side in pretty much everything, not only software.

Re:About time ... (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945676)

32-bit CP/M? Last time I used CP/M, it was only 8-bit. And my computer was a Basis 108, a German-made Apple ][ close with a dual-processor 6502/Z80 motherboard and 64K RAM.

Re:About time ... (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946170)

Exactly :-)

Re:About time ... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945734)

I don't know, I think the N9 had a chance. Nokia just wasn't interested.

Re:About time ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945126)

No they don't.
I steal your patent you steal mine. There is no need to invest heavilly into something, that can be worked around or easilyl copied. If it can be easilly copied, it means it is easilly understood and easily done, which in its case means - it's easy.

Anyway, my ancestor severl thousands of generations ago invented wheel, you all owe me money, especially you!

Re:About time ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945264)

No they don't.
I steal your patent you steal mine. There is no need to invest heavilly into something, that can be worked around or easilyl copied. If it can be easilly copied, it means it is easilly understood and easily done, which in its case means - it's easy.

That is swapping patents, not stealing each other's ;)

Some of the 'easily copied stuff' was the hardest to come up with. I hope you understand that somewhere :)

Re:About time ... (4, Insightful)

slydder (549704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945130)

I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple defends its IP.

I do have a problem with HOW they defend their IP.

Do misunderstand me here. I am NOT an Apple fan. I have a lot of friends that love their iThings and I am happy for them. That said, I wouldn't let them use my computer either. It's a good thing the iThings are available for those not Technically savvy.

But I do want the option to be able to purchase something that is NOT an iThing and also has the ability to allow me to do what "I" want to do, however I want to do it.

Whether patents are good or not is a non-issue. Of course they are good. As long as they are based on common sense. And as the entire world can see this is NOT the case and thus needs to be addressed.

Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

And when did the E70 come out? hmmm. the E75? don't know about you but the only thing that the iphone brought with it was marketing.

Re:About time ... (1)

MichaelKristopeitBro (2488396) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945614)

And when did the E70 come out? hmmm. the E75? don't know about you but the only thing that the iphone brought with it was marketing.

I hope you're joking. IMHO, the best thing the iPhone brought is Android. Because everybody knows that Android would be far far from where it is today if the iPhone had never existed.

Ah, that and usability. Of course.

E70? (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947080)

Oh yeah, an E70 really looks and works like an iPhone. It's more like a Blackberry, although much cooler.

Re:About time ... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946836)

Yep, i agree, now everybody wanna to go to China and build the cheapest phone, no matter how many Chinese people die of exhaustion. Who cares, right? You have got your little shiny EyePhone, the rest,...the hell with it.

This again? (1, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946994)

Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

Let's see, before the iPhone it looked like the LG Prada [wikipedia.org] and after the iPhone it looked like the LG Prada, but selling about three times as much and getting a hell of a lot more publicity for it?

I admit that Apple's ability to copy what other companies have done before them, polish it up and market it in a highly successful way is truly amazing. But being the most popular doesn't give you some kind of magical patent rights, despite what a lot of courts seem to think these days.

Live by the sword, die by the sword (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37944962)

We can only hope a few more judgements like these get the whole industry to settle down and allow a little more leeway in advancing tablet design.

If lots of smaller companies like this start fighting back now that they see they can win, the cost of legal action all over the globe will hopefully make so little financial sense Apple will stop suing others, and with them desisting the other companies can back away too.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945040)

The problem is that their fans throw money at them like toilet paper. $900 for a dual core 16GB 800MHz phone would be laughed at if anyone else tried to sell it. Some would complain about entering a monopoly / being overcharged for anything else, but not them.

There's a lot of money to go through before they stop -- especially considering they've delayed the competition successfully already.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

peted56 (1842988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945084)

Well no, SGSII are doing just fine, you were maybe thinking of the tablets?

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945170)

The SGS II has a 1.2 or 1.5GHz dual core processor, and is (as of nov 2011) $560 (16GB) from Amazon. Larger screen size (one of the more pricey components) to boot.

My original post (3:41am) is not saying that any phones are currently banned. It's simply saying that people will throw money at big red like toilet paper (both their phones beginning with "4" are both clocked at most 800Hz.)

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

MichaelKristopeitBro (2488396) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945664)

$900 for a dual core 16GB 800MHz phone would be laughed at if anyone else tried to sell it.

I bought a 64GB 4GS for less than that. Where did you get that price from?

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946372)

$900 for a dual core 16GB 800MHz phone would be laughed at if anyone else tried to sell it.

I bought a 64GB 4GS for less than that. Where did you get that price from?

Directly out of his ass.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946760)

Did you buy it or did you "buy" it on a subsidized 2-year contract?

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (0)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945060)

make so little financial sense Apple will stop suing others

I take it you didn't see the 60 minutes interview with Walter Isaacson. Apple doesn't care about the money. They have $50 billion. In cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.

New Age (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945150)

I take it you didn't see the 60 minutes interview with Walter Isaacson. Apple doesn't care about the money. They have $50 billion. In cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.

To some extent, everyone cares about money - but also simply about success. If it stops working, why continue?

There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies.

Re:New Age (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945466)

"There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies."

You reckon?

Apple only stepped up the litigation game when Jobs stepped down back in January, that's when they really took off with it. I'm actually concerned now Steve has gone despite Steve's anger towards the competition that this is more Cook's strategy, it just seems odd it started to head this way as soon as Cook started running things day to day and has escalated more and more the closer Jobs got to his death bed and hence the less involvement he was able to have with the company.

There may be quotes now saying Jobs wanted to kill Android and such and an angry man he may have been, but he wasn't stupid - I can't say I ever liked Jobs but he didn't do what he did by thinking litigation was the solution to everything, he did it by pursuing strong product design and marketing. Cook? I'm not so sure, I get the feeling the litigation route is his favoured option because under him innovation has plummeted and litigation has rocketed.

Re:New Age (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947496)

That's an interesting read, I could buy your idea too... so I guess we'll see in about a year or so which way things are trending.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

ericdewey (167132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946432)

In business, EVERYTHING has to do with money. It doesn't matter how much cash they have, the goal of a business is to profit and to increase profits. Period.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945206)

Unfortunately Apple has almost unlimited cash reserves and the stakes are very high, so I doubt they will relent. If they can kill or cripple all competing products it will have huge financial ramifications for years, and not just for tablets by all future devices they can patent. Pumping a few hundred million into open warfare via the courts is easily justifiable.

The best solution would be for the EU to revise patent law to prevent its abuse. For that to happen some big EU companies will have to be attacked with clearly ridiculous patents, e.g. Airbus falling foul of a Boeing patent on "cylindrical flying machine with forward facing observation glass" or being forced to replace "rounded rectangular rubber rolling devices" with sled skis.

Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945646)

You mean the "application of doughnuts shaped rubber implements for flying apparati rolling elements"?
Though ski's or rails could be cool for aircraft :-D

Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (4, Insightful)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945020)

The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (4, Funny)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945056)

The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?

Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.

Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.

Bad dog.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (-1, Troll)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945120)

The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?

Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.

Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.

Bad dog.

If you needed reason as to why Geeks aren't consulted about important decisions just read the above. The facts of the case are not important, what is important is prejudice and personal opinion. Seriously, all you have to do is mention Apple, or Microsoft, or Google and you don't need to read the comments. In the first two the majority of people will be against and will pour vitriol and insults at anyone that disagrees with the hive mind. In the latter there will be overwhelming support regardless of what is actually being done. Google lays claim to every 2nd child as payment for their services, "seems fair" says Slashdot.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945210)

You should be nicer to the man's dog.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945242)

Actually, I'd like that. There is way too many of those damn noisy things out there anyway.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945202)

Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.

Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.

Bad dog.

This was a complaint filed under criminal law. The complainant has not been disclosed. Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints? Does Apple? Does it matter? Or are you just happy to post the same ill-informed nonsense in any event?

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

zachie (2491880) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945260)

Seriously? Name the one company that is most likely (as in almost certainly) behind all this. I really can't find an alternative to apple. While there is no 100% certainty, you can't dismiss it as "nonsense"!

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945352)

Seriously, everyone knows it was Microsoft. They knew it would attract some bad press for Apple with the amount of haters out there. It's just common sense.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945660)

Granted the side of the type of complaint is most definitely overblown, but Apple is definitely the one's behind the complaint. Why in hell would they even think of lodging a complaint that could lead to a criminal investigation?
But we already know that Jobs was a major dick and I wouldn't be surprised that the best dicks among the dicks are the lawyers.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (2)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947386)

Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints?

I'm guessing not.

Does Apple?

Yes. Hmm, do you think maybe it was Apple, and not his dog?!

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947534)

Couldn't be. Florian Mueller said it wasn't Apple, and legions of fanbois rose up in agreement.

And we know they're both always right.

It had to be Apple's evil twin. I mean, more evil.

(is that possible?)

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (2)

gggggggg (862650) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945942)

The company's blog actually contradicts this: http://www.nt-k.com/blog/ [nt-k.com]

This started back in November 2010, when customs blocked import due to a request from Apple. An official notice was sent to the spanish company from Apple requesting they destroy the tablets. (Funny how they expected this to be done if they were blocked by customs...).
On the 9th of December Apple officially fully took the case to court as they'd warned they would unless the action (destroying the blocked import) was taken.

The spanish company is now seeking compensation as they've had their import blocked for a full year, and have actually apparently been added to a blacklist of importers. They're a small company, and deeply troubled by the fact Apple has been able to manage to do this.
Notice they aren't the manufacturer, but a small distributor. They've probably incurred a great loss on this. One full year of market value at least, plus missing delivery dates on their customers.

Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946074)

The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case

Not quite. The update states:

the nature of Apple's involvement may have been limited to that of an initial complainant (who according to nt-k also filed an indictment) as opposed to that of a party litigating a case all the way through. That's what my sources say, and it's possible.

"may have been.. it's possible", says Mr Florian Mueller... Anything is possible, I would prefer him to report the facts rather than his speculative opinion.

NT-K Pad? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945036)

Why not call it the NPK Pad and sell it to farmers?

Also, since most people won't click on the links, you need to see this entry that's now at the top of link #3:

[UPDATE on November 3, 2011] I have meanwhile published a follow-up post that shows and translates the court order dismissing the case and explains that apparently Apple did not actually litigate this case -- its involvement appears to have been limited to an indictment. [/UPDATE]

Re:NT-K Pad? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945252)

Of course Apple didn't litigate this case -- it was a criminal case, and was therefore litigated by the public prosecutor *as all criminal cases are*. It would definitely appear, however, that the case was instigated by a *complaint* made by Apple.

Re:NT-K Pad? (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945684)

And I didn't actually litigate a case against the person who mugged me, though I did file the complaint and pointed at him in the line-up.
Unlike civil cases, criminal cases always proceed regardless of what the actual victim says.
A complaint is only one piece of proof to start an investigation. I mean, otherwise why would a murder case be investigated at all? Since the victim never files a complaint or a lawsuit.

Google and Samsung saw and deemed (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945044)

Google and Samsung saw and deemed "attaboy!".

Code ownership (3, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945078)

Apple's attempt to own the code that other developers write has failed in this case. They will continue their mission though. They are using software-patents to take ownership of other people's code. It a horrible horrible development in the software industry. Filing patents on applications and gestures just so they can claim ownership over code that they did not write. This egregious behavior on the part of Apple is really showing their true colors. Apple followed by Microsoft and Oracle are the most anti-competitive companies in the software industry and people who are aware of this egregious behavior on the part of Apple and still go out and purchase their products are simply willfully supporting this kind of abuse and litigious practice in the software marketplace and are willfully helping Apple to destroy the software marketplace by removing consumer choice with these despicable practices.

Re:Code ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945282)

amen

Re:Code ownership (-1, Flamebait)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945562)

You two idiots did actually read the article right? Apple didn't file this complaint. Of course you didn't, this is Slashdot and at Slashdot if the title has Apple in it then it's bad and if it has Google in the title then it's good.

Re:Code ownership (1)

tenverras (855530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945802)

And yet, you are here. Next time, before you become your own contradiction, how about being a little civil. You bring up Google, yet the defendant was a Spanish company, with Google not being mentioned in the title.

Re:Code ownership (2)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946376)

Actually, they most definitely filed this complaint, they even demanded the defendant destroy all of the devices in question before the trial began. However, apparently this was a criminal case that was brought against the defendant. So Apple didn't even have to pay for the lawyers because the Spanish government prosecuted the case.

Wait, so either you didn't even look at the articles, or you have failed entirely to understand what you read and you are complaining about other people being uninformed and biased?

Re:Code ownership (3, Insightful)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945688)

You do realise that in this case the claims were not grounded in software anything?

Re:Code ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946168)

Stop trying to censor people with opinions but no fucking clue as to what it is being discussed. I personally think BP got off easy. It's the regular joes who pay the price of BP's lax safety standards. Let's see some high ranking bankers up before a judge! Justice for Armenia and fuck copyright!

Re:Code ownership (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947406)

I guess "patent on rectangle with rounded corners" is vastly more reasonable than "patent on mathematical algorithm implemented in software".

</sarcasm>

Here's the link to a non PAYWALLED news source (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945230)

http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=468916

Re:Here's the link to a non PAYWALLED news source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945626)

That's not a link. That's a URL. A link looks like this: Spanish company wins tablet patent case against Apple [totaltele.com]

The weird thing is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945460)

what is really anti-competitive? Apples legal actions, or the fact that many of these patents are based on software patents which are based on total BS.

Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945488)

They weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945706)

The primary weapon is fear

not Spanish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37945500)

The company is Valencian.

Actually, the case hasn't been dismissed... (4, Informative)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945572)

...but suspended, awaiting further evidence.

Sobreseimiento (as in the original report) [scribd.com] != dismissal

Just nitpicking, though. I don't think there is a case.

Re:Actually, the case hasn't been dismissed... (2)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945700)

On the other hand, criminal cases can be in a suspended state for centuries.

Yes, it has (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946302)

I am from Spain, so I undertand quite well the meaning of "sobreseimiento" and I am following the case close. There are two types, you can translate them to "suspension" and "dismisal". In this case the judge resolution was final, so it is not just suspended. That is why now "catala nuevas tecnologias" can sue Apple, otherwise it could not be possible.

The iPad Patent (1)

syntap (242090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945616)

I disagree with those that are criticizing the article. I found it very educational, I had no idea the entire iPad was covered by a single patent.

Re:The iPad Patent (3, Funny)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37945972)

One patent to rule them all!
My precious!

Re:The iPad Patent (2)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946404)

Wait so is Steve Sauron now? I thought he was playing Saruman to Bill's Sauron!

Why doesn't anyone tell me about these casting changes?

It's Spain (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946674)

Along with Greece and Italy it won't really be a nation much longer.

Well. (1)

catbertscousin (770186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37947362)

I guess nobody expected that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>