×

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!

Apple Has Spent More Than $100 Million Suing Android Manufacturers

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the saved-three-iphone-sales dept.

Android 184

Diggester writes with an excerpt from an article at Gizmocrazed about the absurd amount of money Apple has spent suing HTC et al: "The never-ending war on Android has cost Apple more than $100 million, according to latest estimates. While a huge chunk of that money was spent (read wasted) in claims against HTC. So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

184 comments

Does not compute (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810621)

So far, 84 claims have been filed against different Android manufacturers (HTC, Samsung, etc.) for patent infringements, out of which only 10 were proved to have been infringed and only one ruling has gone in Apple's favor."

WTH? What happened in the 9 cases where the patent was proven to be infringed but the ruling didn't go in Apple's favour?

Re:Does not compute (4, Funny)

almitydave (2452422) | about 2 years ago | (#38810711)

I don't see it discussed in TFAs, but all 10 could be from the same case, or Apple could have lost the cases for some other reason, such as when filing the paperwork with the court, on the place on the form that says "do not write in this space," they wroke "okay."

Re:Does not compute (3, Informative)

oxdas (2447598) | about 2 years ago | (#38812167)

I think the reason is these are not full court cases,but injunction hearings. Only one jurisdiction, Germany, is enforcing any sort of an injunction and they are still allowing third parties to market and sell Samsung products, just not Samsung.

Re:Does not compute (5, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#38812317)

Groklaw I believe is where I read a brief summary. The judge in at least one of those cases said that while there was infringement there was no possible way that damages were caused because of the nature of the patent. I like smart Judges personally.

In several other cases (again see if you can find them on Groklaw) the MFR was given time to work around the patent. Again no damages were awarded.

Which is which case? No idea off the top of my head. I read way to much to know sources this long after reading them.

1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (3, Insightful)

psergiu (67614) | about 2 years ago | (#38810635)

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (5, Insightful)

Lambeco (1705140) | about 2 years ago | (#38810681)

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?

Any compensation awarded to Apple in these cases is purely icing, and a molecule in the bucket compared to Apple's capital. This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image. And as we all know, Apple will go to any lengths to do so.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#38810771)

I don't think he was asking if suing was a profit center for Apple, but rather asking whether the money recovered via license agreements would cover the costs of all that litigation.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Calos (2281322) | about 2 years ago | (#38811177)

Right.

And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.

The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#38811407)

Right.

And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.

The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.

The summary author could be Pro-Apple-Stockholder and is outrage that the company his retirement depends on has wasted $100,000,000 on frivolous lawsuits.

remove wrong moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812589)

lala

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 2 years ago | (#38810853)

This is about Steve Jobs throwing a tantrum because Google had the audacity to try and compete with the iphone with Android.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811675)

This is about Steve Jobs throwing a tantrum because Google had the audacity to try and compete with the iphone with Android.

The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (2, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#38811817)

The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.

Do you mean to say Apple offered everything on iOS to Google and said "There. Do what you want with it." ?

That's not the story - at least not the way I remember it.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (3, Informative)

teg (97890) | about 2 years ago | (#38812153)

The tantrum was about someone doing to him exactly what he did to Xerox.

Apple licensed the technology, and paid in Apple stock. So not comparable

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (2)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#38811361)

The point here is that lawsuits just like anything else done by Apply is a business operation. And it's worth asking just as with anything else such as a product line whether they're getting value for that money. It sounds to me like they sunk $100 million without having much to show for it.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Lambeco (1705140) | about 2 years ago | (#38811539)

I think Apple tends to play the long game, with a tendency to err on the side of extremism. Will this $100 million be recovered in prevented IP theft (i.e. profit made by companies that have "stolen" Apple's design)? Probably not directly. And probably not in a measurable way. But I think Apple considers the thought leadership loss prevention worth it. They want to remain unique, and litigation appears to be one of the tools they like to use to maintain that position.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#38811445)

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.

No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#38811835)

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.

No, it's about protecting their patents. Trademark infringement is completely different...

Awwww, come on... It's all the same ip thingy now.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 2 years ago | (#38811937)

As we're seeing though,those patents aren't that strong. Can of worms opening up is that the stuff they have isn't that noteworthy, and the people they're attacking appear to have just as many, perhaps more actual meaningful patents.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Lambeco (1705140) | about 2 years ago | (#38812085)

That's true. I definitely misused "trademark" there and should have left it out.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (5, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 2 years ago | (#38812539)

This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.

Not really. It's about obstructing its competitors from bringing their phones to market. Apple figured out a year ago that its competitors have better phones than it does.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#38810687)

Doesn't matter that much. In 2010, $100 million would have been about one tenth of one percent of Apple's income.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#38810753)

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?

As the case wasn't tried in South Korea, I think the award was probably in dollars.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#38810877)

The real question is: how much money did all the lawsuits (winning or not) cost the competitors?

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (1)

Calos (2281322) | about 2 years ago | (#38811203)

Yes.

And don't forget - the monetary cost to the defendants is only part of the cost to the platform as a whole.

Chilling effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811205)

The REAL question: Did it also deter any potential competitors from creating new competing product?

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811001)

Question is - how much money did they won from that one ruling in favor ?

Zero. HTC just removed the feature and the court where Apple brought the suit can't issue money damages.

.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/21/BU5H1MFCVG.DTL

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#38811239)

Proof that they will enforce their patients.

We are talking about a company that nearly went out of business because they didn't properly patent their UI (And Apple did a lot of improvements over the Xerox design) causing other companies to copy their key advantage in their market. If Apple had patented windows that overlap and enforced it Apples and Microsoft history would be very different.

Sometimes it isn't as much as winning or loosing, but more to the point if you are going to copy Apples design, you are going to fight for it.

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811705)

They'd be better served spending that money on improving their products. "if you can't compete, sue"

Re:1 ruling in favor vs. $100M (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811755)

It is hardly about the money. it is about strategy.
If you sue the right manufactor at the right time, then you might get a market lead when you release your product before they are able to.

So much for returns. (3, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | about 2 years ago | (#38810637)

They could have gotten higher ones investing in manufacturing in the US for US markets versus this unproductive litigation.

Re:So much for returns. (3, Informative)

psergiu (67614) | about 2 years ago | (#38810695)

They did - Samsung will open a new factory in Texas for producing the A? CPUs. Too bad that they will be shipped to China for final assembly as there are no suitable factories in US :)

Re:So much for returns. (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#38810701)

Microsoft's mobile business essentially IS extorting money from Android manufacturers to indemnify themselves against litigation, I'm not sure why Apple wouldn't try their hand at it too.

Re:So much for returns. (1)

Gribflex (177733) | about 2 years ago | (#38811097)

I think Microsoft's strategy is to generate revenue by accepting licensing payments from android manufacturers. This is good for their bottom line as they are making steady income from other people.

Apple's strategy, I think, is to damage their competitors. By keeping android in court, they are hurting sales numbers directly (samsung products being banned for sale, even for just a few months), or indirectly (third party developers question whether android is the right platform; manufacturers reducing their focus on android phones).

They aren't making any money directly from their legal action, but if you look at the whole picture, I'll bet they are doing at least as well as Microsoft. The iPhone still has a hefty market share - which is important for Apple because they make the bulk of their iPhone related money on the iTunes store commissions. If they took licensing payments instead, they would get some money from the manufacturers, but potentially lose their cut on movies, music, apps, etc.

Re:So much for returns. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811661)

Couldn't avoid the Microsoft bash in an article that has nothing to do with them huh? Gay.

Re:So much for returns. (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#38812275)

Truth hurts sometimes doesn't it?

To me, nothing wrong with comparing to steaming piles on occasion. Especially if you are forced to smell them by law (IP Patent Law that is).

Re:So much for returns. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811225)

It's hard to say how productive it actually is. Given that everything is subject to appeals it's unlikely that we know how successful these suits are until much later. However, assuming that they make around $300 in profit from each iDevice, they only need to increase sales by 333K units in order to break even. Whether or not these lawsuits result in them selling additional devices beyond what they already sale is debatable and difficult to determine, but $100M is not a large cost for Apple. Also, as another poster pointed out, the people Apple is suing have probably spent a similar amount in legal fees and don't have a huge pile of cash on hand like Apple does. Even the length of the legal proceedings will wear them down over time.

Settlement deal (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#38811819)

All these companies suing each other are jockeying for position in an inevitable settlement deal. The expense is worth it.

Re:So much for returns. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812599)

Ah, but the US economy has moved on to more profitable activities than manufacturing - for example litigation is an important growth area that employs many highly skilled professionals.

Plus Nokia (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810677)

Don't forget they also paid Nokia $500M up front plus ongoing royalties on top of what the rest of the case cost them.

Money not necessarily 'wasted' (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#38810709)

A patent troll might consider that money a wise investment, even if it results in a court loss. It still creates Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

Also, going to court is always a risk. There is some chance that no matter how ridiculous its claims, Apple might win on some minor points, or even some major ones.

Consider this: Apple's Dutch Galaxy Tab ban shot down by The Hague [channelregister.co.uk]

From that article:

After presiding over wrangles regarding the exact appearance of the two tablets and a thorough discussion of features such as dotted lines, screen icons and thickness of the device, the Dutch judge concluded that the Samsung Tablet gave a different overall impression to Apple's iPad.

Yes folks. Money spent to argue over dotted lines and thickness of the device.

Yes. Thickness of the device. A reasonable design goal to anyone.

That's like arguing infringement of a sports car design based on "goes fast".

Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' (5, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#38811035)

at least they looked at the devices. If I recall, Germany provided an initial injunction based on a heavily photoshopped picture, provided by apple, showing the ipad vs galaxy tab that had the tab's dimensions grossly distorted and a non-standard home screen manipulated to appear as close to the ipad as possible.

The car equivilent wouldn't be "goes fast" it would be ferrari showing a simple photo of an F40 next to a lamborghini where the lambo's body has been completely removed and replaced with an F40 look-alike, painted with a ferrari factory color, and had ferrari-esque badges slapped on... except the whole lambo conversion was done by ferrari themselves in order to misrepresent the true appearance of the original car.

Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811701)

Stop trolling FUD. The judge had two physical devices in his hand. Claiming a decision was made based solely on a picture on a piece of paper is idiotic.

If I recall, Germany provided an initial injunction based on a heavily photoshopped picture

Re:Money not necessarily 'wasted' (1)

Forbman (794277) | about 2 years ago | (#38811813)

No, not a lamborghini, but a Pontiac Fiero, with a really bad body kit on it.

Or even better, a Geo Metro with a red rattle can paint job (or Maaco), you know, with overspray still on the tires, Ferrari F-40-lookalike wheel covers (maybe they're even spinners, too!), two Lee Press-on NACA Scoops on the hood, and some Firrari (yes, the misspelling is intentional) badges stuck on in various places with double-sided tape. And they even forgot to 'shop the "K&N Filter" & "Michael Jordan" stickers from the rear window. If you look close enough, you can at least see where they removed or 'shopped the Buick-esque stick-on vent "holes" from the front fender.

I'm sure pictures of the 2nd could be found on Jalopnik, Autoblog, etc...

Says it is money well spent (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 2 years ago | (#38810731)

From original TFA [realdanlyons.com] :

Eventually everyone is going to settle. (Steve Jobs may have wanted to drive Android out of existence, but that’s probably not going to happen.) The question is what kind of terms will everyone get in these settlements. The court fights are really just a way of jockeying for position and trying to gain leverage for the great settlement that is yet to come.

In that sense, whatever Apple is spending on legal fees is probably money well spent.

Numbers (1)

Barny (103770) | about 2 years ago | (#38810741)

Where the hell did they get that number from?

I really hope they are not including the costs of their lawyers, lawyers that will be on retainer and paid regardless if they were fighting a court case or not.

The source gives no justification to the number, it quite literally, as we Aussies would put it, 'pulled it out their arse'.

Re:Numbers (2)

nomadic (141991) | about 2 years ago | (#38810879)

That's not how it works; you pay a little down to put a lawyer on retainer so when you have to litigate they are available and ready to start right away. Once they start litigating they'll bill you for the time worked and that will typically dwarf the original retainer by several orders of magnitude.

Re:Numbers (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#38811129)

Very true indeed. Large companies have lawyers on staff looking for work to do. It's more like the lawyers that they have on staff are just looking to make themselves look relevant. If the lawyers don't have anything to do, you can cut back on the number of lawyers you have on retainer.

Fear of Apple (-1, Troll)

mveloso (325617) | about 2 years ago | (#38810769)

That's OK - the $100m put the Fear of Apple into the Android licensing community. Apple's not like Microsoft, who wants to take a chunk of Android money and call it even.

Hopefully this is making the Android team (and the Android hardware partners) less likely to rip off Apple's IP. Why? Because if Apple spend $100m, the manufacturers must have spend more defending themselves.

It seems everyone's forgotten how different things were before the iPhone. All this "obvious" shit wasn't obvious at all back then, and it was only a few years ago. Has anyone saying different ever used an old Symbian/WinMo/WinCE device? They sucked. Half of the iOS stuff was impossible to do, and nobody was even thinking about the rest of it. That's how lame the field was.

Re:Fear of Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810959)

Just because you're the first to do something doesn't mean what you're doing isn't obvious. There are usually many reasons for not doing the obvious: Not having access to the necessary resources, not having the know how for other integral parts of the product, having more profitable things going, etc.

Sometimes an idea's time has simply come and then many people think up the same innovative things. That shouldn't give anyone the right to claim the idea for themselves. Apple invented none of the technologies which made the iPhone possible and neither Apple nor anyone else could have made the iPhone without these technologies. The iPhone was flawlessly executed and certainly a step ahead, but it was an inevitable step ahead, spurred by innovations outside of Apple, and had Apple not taken that step, then someone else would have.

Re:Fear of Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810981)

Everyone also forgot how different things were before Karl Benz. Good thing he sued Henry Ford out of existence and nipped that whole competitive market thingy in the bud early on...

/car analogy

Re:Fear of Apple (5, Informative)

Terrasque (796014) | about 2 years ago | (#38811405)

It seems everyone's forgotten how different things were before the iPhone. All this "obvious" shit wasn't obvious at all back then, and it was only a few years ago.

Well, you got LG Prada (came out before iPhone, had virtual touch buttons), Samsung F700 (slightly after iPhone), and then you of course got IBM Simon... Launched in 1993, had touch screen controls, a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. And it had less physical buttons than the iPhone.

So... I'd say that all that obvious shit was pretty obvious back then, but the hardware was lacking a bit. Being the first in a race doesn't mean you invented running :)

Correction (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#38810773)

Apple Has Invested More Than $100 Million Suing Android Manufacturers

It's looking after their Intellectual Property, wither they have that property or not.

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811271)

It's looking after their Intellectual Property, wither they have that property or not.

Thinking that one owns Information could be better called Imaginary Property.
Maybe we should frame IP that way.

Thermonuclear War... (5, Funny)

787style (816008) | about 2 years ago | (#38810777)

"I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs

$100 million down, $39.9 billion to go.

Re:Thermonuclear War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811011)

You mean $40 billion - all the executive pay and bonuses

Re:Thermonuclear War... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811493)

Steve was never one to let the facts get in the way of his view of the universe.

Re:Thermonuclear War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811909)

Actually as of now, $100 million down, $97.6 billion to go...

True Evil - Apple (2, Interesting)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about 2 years ago | (#38810801)

This article caught me at a good (or bad depending on how you look at it) time. I am so sick of Apple fanatics and how they are willing destroying the personal computer industry. They hold their limp wrists high (no intent to offend gays, but it is such a fitting description) in celebration of their superior operating system, with no clue as to how they are being brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights.

I gave in a year ago after a stroke and bought an iPad. I loved it, supported it for a year. Then one day Apple decided I was a security risk. Now whenever I turn on my iPad it says it has been 'locked for security reasons'. There is no way to get anything resembling technical support since I didn't choose to pay their extortion, err, support plan. The web has no help. And I'm stuck with a $599 soft drink coaster, and not a very good one at that..

Now, has anyone read about their plot to hold the education system at gunpoint? Give away authoring tools, promise the world, and hahahaha, only sell through Apple, requiring all schools to buy iPads for every student, every time Apple needs a cash influx and upgrades the iPad. That borders on illegal criminal scheming, and due the stupid nature of our government, will probably work..

Fuck Apple, please let them burn in hell.

Re:True Evil - Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810895)

I think you meant to say that your Apple ID has been blocked for security reasons. There is no process that I know of that blocks access to the hardware. This happens when you (or someone trying to access your Apple ID) enters your password incorrectly too many times. You may find this page helpful:

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2446

Re:True Evil - Apple (-1, Troll)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about 2 years ago | (#38810995)

you may find sucking my dick useful. The iPad has never been used by anyone else, has never left my sight, and now sits at the 'hook up to iTunes' graphic that you get when first powering on. And the password has NEVER been entered wrong. Are you implying that Apple has been hacked?

Re:True Evil - Apple (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about 2 years ago | (#38811175)

Have you ever thought about making a reservation at an Apple store and having them take a look at it in person? Or, if you're too far from a store, mail your hardware to them for inspection? I've needed their assistance a couple times and they've always been very accommodating and helpful.

Re:True Evil - Apple (1)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about 2 years ago | (#38811319)

Yes, quite honestly, i've though about it. It just happened, thus the comment about timing. But like I said earlier, I suffered from a stroke and getting out is not something I do a lot, for health reasons. And I have decided when I do go out, I will looking to buy an alternative. I never liked Apple's take over the world by brainwashing philosophy, and the is an iPad 1, showing it's age and not worth the effort. But thanks for at least not saying it's all my fault, and posting as an AC, such a fitting tittle to the others.

Apple store = NO BUENO (1)

broseidon (2537346) | about 2 years ago | (#38811473)

Unfortunately, every trip I've ever had to make to the Apple Store resulted in heartache.. It's like a bad help desk line for any half-competent user. The final straw happened when I had an issue with my iPhone a little over a year ago.. a couple hard resets and eventually restoring it to factory defaults did not correct the problem. Made an appointment, waited 15 minutes after my scheduled time, was directed to an iPhone "genius", who asked me if I'd hard reset it or restored it, and then told me she couldn't help me any further, and I needed to speak with an "iPhone expert".. and waited another 20 minutes to have a guy simply pitch me purchasing a refurb one for $200. Needless to say, I sold it for parts and went Android. Haven't looked back since.

Re:Apple store = NO BUENO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812181)

I'm guessing your iPhone was not under warranty so the response was reasonable IMO. If your android phone dies after warranty expires I'd be surprised if the result is any different. I have an HP touchpad 9 (running Android CM7), a FreeBSD server and Windows desktops if that says anything but also an iPhone. When I dropped my 8 month old iPhone in salt water it was replaced for no charge at the Apple store. If you want your (under warranty) phone replaced it helps to go on a busy day towards closing time.

Re:True Evil - Apple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810899)

Yep. Absolutely, utterly impossible to get anything resembling tech support. A Google search for "ipad locked for security reasons" turns up this Apple knowledge base article [http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2446], titled "Apple ID: "This Apple ID has been disabled for security reasons" alert appears". The article tells you how to reset your password.

It's an absolute shame there's no way to get this information from anybody, much less Apple.

Re:True Evil - Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811651)

every time Apple needs a cash influx and upgrades the iPad That only works until some bright spark speaks up and says 'hey we are basically switching anyway lets see what other people have'.

It is what killed them the first time around. It will again.

Re:True Evil - Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812005)

What a drama queen. (No offense to actual queens).

Re:True Evil - Apple (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#38812203)

...destroying the personal computer industry ...brainwashed into supporting abandonment of all personal rights ...plot to hold the education system at gunpoint

Hyperbole much? For someone complaining about fanaticism, you sound completely crazed. All that because you couldn't figure out how to use an iPad? Yeesh.

Re:True Evil - Apple (1)

sqldr (838964) | about 2 years ago | (#38812427)

I'm still trying to find the option for "please don't lock my property". Until I find an easy way to stop a 3rd party interfering with my device, I call it difficult to use.

Re:True Evil - Apple (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about 2 years ago | (#38812379)

Uh... you'd rather Apple not introduce their iBooks product at all? Schools can still use *textbooks* you know. It's not as if Apple is taking away all alternatives which have worked for the thousands of years schools have existed.

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38810805)

Slashdot headline states something as fact. How do we know? We know because Dan Lyons, aka "Fake Steve Jobs," tells us:

"a person close to the situation tells me there’s a rumor going around among the lawyers that Apple spent $100 million"

An anonymous source reporting a rumor... becomes a plain ol' fact. Nice.

Did I mention that Dan Lyons is not terribly reliable [daringfireball.net] and just [daringfireball.net] loves [daringfireball.net] calling people "Apple fanboy"? Mm-hm.

Grandstanding for future settlements (3, Insightful)

Lugor (628175) | about 2 years ago | (#38810857)

What the articles don't point out is this could be all grandstanding and positioning by all parties in a future patent settlement. Current patent laws and process allows too much overlap; they all virtually infringe on each others patent. They will all have to settle at some point, so look at the $100 million not as court costs but investment in future patent royalties or down-payment on future royalty payout.

So for $100m (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | about 2 years ago | (#38810891)

Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?

Is that crazy?

Re:So for $100m (2)

teg (97890) | about 2 years ago | (#38811665)

Could they have just manufactured the iPhone in the USA?

Is that crazy?

  1. No [nytimes.com] . The cost difference is much, much higher. 65 USD/phone has been mentioned - about 2.5 billion USD just last quarter.
  2. More importantly, the skills needed don't exist and you have a manufacturing ecosystem in the area - almost all the things in the iPhone are made there too, making logistics[1] much easier. Also, using iSlaves adds tremendous flexibility
  3. Apple transformed the mobile market with the iPhone - just look at phones before and after. Protecting as much as possible of this - while taking advantage of other transformations being available RAND - is what they want. The lawsuits is about stopping companies copying Apple, not about getting a share like Microsoft is happy doing.

[1] Logistics is where Apple really makes their money. Few products, little shelf time, no inventory. The actual product is a premium product at a premium price, true - but that costs in build quality and support as well. By keeping few product lines, reusing the same components and being the masters of supply chain management their profits go from "OK" to "incredible". Just witness how much trouble others have in matching the iPad price.

Why does the Beatles record label hate copying so? (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | about 2 years ago | (#38810897)

Oh, wait ... you're talking of some other company which, err, copied their name. I'll get my coat...

Apple *is* helping American industry (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#38810925)

So, they don't manufacture iStuff thingies in the US. But look how they are helping to build up the strategic American lawsuit industry! The US will be the world's leader and #1 in the lawsuit business!

No need to invade Third World countries any more . . . sue the pants of them!

-1: Troll (0, Troll)

jasno (124830) | about 2 years ago | (#38810937)

Hahahahaha... fuck you apple fanboys. You know, it's been sad to watch otherwise smart folks bend over to suck Cupertino's cock. Some of us knew all along that Jobs would be even worse than Gates if he only had the chance.

Apple, as a company, reminds me of some hipster asshole who steals his ideas from some unheard-of artist, and then gets pissed when people start copying him in return.

Hey - what was Apple's position on SOPA/PIPA anyway? Hmm.. seems like they were strangely silent. Good thing you signed up for their walled garden. I hope they're still around in 25 years when you want to reference that iTextbook that can't be viewed on any other manufacturer's device.

Re:-1: Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811173)

Apt description. Don't worry. One day all this market lockup, fat bankers getting fatter, IP lawyers crushing people will end. People will at some point start offing some of these bastards...

yoU Fail It... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811045)

the hard drive 7o and 3xecutes a

Its an estimate but the headline states it as fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811497)

One of many reasons why Slashdot is a joke these days.

You're surprised, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811571)

It's not about money for Apple. Like Steve said, (and is quoted in his biography) - Android manufacturers (read: Google) could offer him $4 billion dollars and he'd turn it down. He said he'd spend every penny Apple has in the bank to kill Android.

But back up to 2007, when he announced all the new tech in the original iPhone that nobody else had or had even thought of. What'd he promise, right there on stage, in January 2007? That the whole thing, from top to bottom, was patented. The next line is the kicker "And you better believe we'll defend those patents."

He knew others would copy. And they did. Now Apple is suing, just as he said they would.

Sorry - what in this surprises you? What didn't you see coming, here? You didn't think he was serious? That's your mistake.

Why do we make this even possible? (3, Interesting)

laughingcoyote (762272) | about 2 years ago | (#38811641)

Doesn't this show one more reason we need to get rid of software patents?

There are a limited number of ways to make a usable smartphone interface, especially when competing with an already-established method. Of course they're going to be similar. There are a limited number of ways to make a handheld device that comfortably fits in the hand and pocket. Of course they're going to look similar.

Didn't we used to require "non-obviousness" as a requirement for a patent? Aren't these things obvious?

Android is a bad ripoff anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38811749)

There was a time from 2005-2007 when everyone knew that a iPod touch shaped phone would come out.

The problem is that Google could do no wrong even though they are built on copying stuff and buying out other companies. And the stock price is a whole other story. I never understood what is so good about Google anyways. Too bad they were late in making a version of the iPhone that was inferior.

Re:Android is a bad ripoff anyways (1)

teg (97890) | about 2 years ago | (#38812301)

There was a time from 2005-2007 when everyone knew that a iPod touch shaped phone would come out.

iPod touch was released sometime after the iPhone - at the time, they were selling iPod classics and Nanos. Phones sucked ( like my N95, or anything else Symbian/windows mobile based), and touch screen phones used styluses.

Good! Let this be the death of Apple (0)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#38811761)

And 2015 shall be 1995 for Apple all over again as iPhones and iPads become an afterthought in a market glutted and dominated by Android appliances.
Apple can exist peddling multi thousand dollar laptops and desktops that will be required to develop apps for the it's dying line of handheld devices.

Re:Good! Let this be the death of Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812499)

Considering Apple just posted enormous record profits for fall 2011, I think you are living in a fantasy land.

I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38812023)

I believe this number is pretty inflated. Let me just give you an example. If each of those 84 claims had 10 attorneys working on it (unlikely, probably more like 5) billing out at an average $400/hr that would still be approximately 300 hours per attorney. Now that is assuming, that each of these claims had 10 different attorneys working on them and that there is no copy/pasting going on between the claims (highly highly unlikely). Now this estimate doesn't include other costs, but those would be minimal in comparison to the hours billed.

That's nice of Apple . . . (1)

dogsbreath (730413) | about 2 years ago | (#38812207)

. . . to bring clarity to the market no matter what the cost to them or their competitors. ($100 million for apple . . . how much did this force their competition to spend on legal fees, research etc.).

Clearly a company that has ideals and values, and is willing to stand up for them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...