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!

In Wake of Samsung Verdict, HTC Does Not Intend To Settle

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the today-is-a-good-day-to-die dept.

Android 286

Taco Cowboy writes "The recent lost by Samsung in a court battle against Apple apparently does not put a dent to other parties determination to fight Apple, inside and outside of the court system HTC's Chairperson, Ms. Cher Wang, has publicly re-iterated her belief that the $1 billion jury verdict against Samsung in the U.S. 'does not mean the failure of the entire Google Android ecosystem.'"

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

How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165545)

Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges and other obvious design features, all these patent lawsuits of recent years have made me wonder how it's possible these days for any software or hardware startup to even get going. It seems almost a given that any company that comes up with any new idea or piece of software these days, and subsequently makes even a modicum of money off of it, is pretty much guaranteed to get hit by a slew of patent lawsuits, some perhaps from big-name companies with deep pockets and lots of lawyers.

As someone who has thought about going into indie software development myself, this scares the hell out of me. I can't imagine investing a ton of time and money into some innovative new product, only to be drowned into bankruptcy by patent trolls and the software big guns who have quietly patented every obvious element of design and every trivial element of every bit of software and hardware (even those with with decades of clear prior art). I'm not sure I would even consider trying anymore without the investment of a big patent law firm just to protect me.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165691)

Tesla innovated just fine. He died crazy and poor while lesser men made themselves the gatekeepers to his creations and robbed the masses blind, sure... but he still innovated. Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really... but the principle is the same.

Just because you're a slave doesn't mean you can't work.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (3, Insightful)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165887)

Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166837)

Nikola Tesla also died long before all this patent happy business the GP is talking about.

Tesla was alive when the patent wars over an automobile with internal combustion engine was on(though, that got squashed eventually).

Easiest is to just not sell in USA. but it's friggin sad that despite there now being software and parts available for everyone to build phones, we didn't actually get any more phone producing companies to the western market than before.

Etymology of 'Innovation' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165947)

Well, invented... innovation is the dumb-grunt work, really...

Nah, it's the politician's and businessman's abduction of an old word to mean "generates revenue streams." Has nothing to do with inventions, weak or strong.

Today: "That's innovative!" Translation: "Morons will fucking buy that shit everywhere!"

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165991)

It's funny how the system hasn't changed at all. You didn't need patents to make slaves then either. It just helps make it easier today. Screw innovation. That's so 20th century.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166113)

Just because you can work, doesn't mean you should be a slave. Just like being able to invent, doesn't mean you should die poor and unknown.

I think any new inventors should contact the Mafia, they're a lot more honest than these guys.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

noh8rz8 (2716593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166351)

Flip side: tesla innovated just fine, building a new generation of electric vehicles. Teyre now a public company and on the cusp of rolling out a new model. Clearly patents did not hold them back.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

ZaSz-RH (923115) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165729)

They usually don't go after indie. They go after BIG profits.
If you start a company that gets there, I guess having to get some lawyers is the last of your problems :)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166571)

Nice .... so you can try, but you won't be allowed to actually succeed. The New American way?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (4, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166745)

They go after indie guys for precedent, then they turn around and use it as ammo for the case against the big guy.

The big guys, can and will defend themselves, but it'll be harder for them, if you got a dozen cases supporting your claim.

It's well worth it to spend and not recover $100k on a case against an indie, if it'll make the big guy pay our an extra $1m because of how strong your case is.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165763)

This. I can't even begin to think of an equivocal thing that has happened throughout history. Perhaps union busting might come close, but for sweet jesus sake, the way these patent lawyers are working is just sickening. It's funny how you hear so much about tort reform and other such garbage from politicians but you don't hear a peep about patent trolling or the abuse of IP rights which is more of a hampering force on our economy than all of the malpractice lawsuits in the history of forever ever have been or will be.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166153)

This. I can't even begin to think of an equivocal thing that has happened throughout history. Perhaps union busting might come close, but for sweet jesus sake, the way these patent lawyers are working is just sickening. It's funny how you hear so much about tort reform and other such garbage from politicians but you don't hear a peep about patent trolling or the abuse of IP rights which is more of a hampering force on our economy than all of the malpractice lawsuits in the history of forever ever have been or will be.

I feel the need to post this on ever damn patent story on here. Read your history. This is both nothing new, and pretty tame by patent battle standards. The industrialization of the US happened both in spite of, and *because* of these sort of patent battles. The patent battles over things like programmable looms and sewing equipment made Samsung vs Apple look like something Judge Judy would preside over. And the fallout of those battles during the 19th century established the foundation of the companies that went on to fund the continued industrial growth and innovation in the US.

And the answer to how you can innovate these days is simple -- the same way every other company did over the last 200 years. License what you think is critical, ignore the things you think you can get away with, and patent as much as you can because the cheapest way to license patents has always been to cross license patents. Oh, and really study your history. They say there's nothing new under the sun, and in IP and technical litigation, that is absolutely true.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166363)

And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?
"Over the last 200 years" only a very small percentage of people could afford starting an industrial business.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166659)

And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?

Well, if we're talking about the patent-whoring machines founded by the likes of J.P. Morgan, George Westinghouse, and John Rockefeller...
pretty [go.com]
damn [wikipedia.org]
good. [thinkprogress.org]

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (4, Insightful)

DevotedSkeptic (2715017) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165785)

I agree, the patent system is so broken it is only a new venue for attorneys to grow rich, while innovators and consumers suffer. What is even more disturbing and wrong is the ability to patent life forms, or even genes. Centers performing cutting edge cancer research cannot always have access to genes or genomes they wish to study because they are simply unable to afford the price of admission (licensing). It really is a sad state of affairs.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166599)

The patent system was never designed to protect creators or the public. It was designed to protect the people who exploited those parties. Patents protect the capitalist who owns the factory that manufactures the goods. Copyrights protect the capitalist who owns the factory that binds the books. The system isn't broken, it's doing what it was designed to do... preserve and increase the power of the few over the many and make that power completely arbitrary and unbound by the will of the people.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165805)

The sad truth is that there is pretty much only one way: Make so much money so quickly that you build up a war chest capable of mutually assured destruction if someone sues you. Otherwise, your best bet is to get just big enough to be bought by a megacorp and hope that they give you the leeway to keep working on your project relatively unfettered.

Independent inventors/developers/designers/whatever simply don't have a chance in today's patent environment. Ironically, they are screwed by the very system that was originally set up to protect them.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

macromorgan (2020426) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165835)

Did it not occur to you that perhaps this is what the larger firms want? By setting up this confusing system in such a manner, it makes it nearly impossible for smaller companies to innovate. That ensures they do not have to face nearly as much disruptive technology as they otherwise would, and their revenue streams remain secure.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166205)

It most certainly has, and it's most certainly working. :(

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165875)

I think that America will only realise that this is a problem when its too late. Wait until the Chinese market is bigger than the US market, and any imports are hit by bans because someone has patented a "device with three buttons and a flip switch" or whatever.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Insightful)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165907)

Know how you feel. I had a few voip ideas and at the moment, I can't find anyone actually with a product out that does what I had planned, but when looking at patents, it's a minefield. There's so many patents I could see as /almost/ being the same, methods of communicating type stuff, control channel, that if I did well, I'm sure there'd be a line of lawyers. Still, the lawyers I've spoken with are happy to start the ball rolling, and have recommendations on lawyers to hire WHEN I get sued. They know how the lay of the land is at the moment. I've given up. That slim chance to make enough money to pay for lawyers to fend off the others? Stuff it, not worth the headaches.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2, Funny)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165989)

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How were tablet prototype designs before the iPad was released?

The "obvious" swipe movement to unlock a device only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How come it wasn't "obvious" before the iPhone was released?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166141)

No, the slide to unlock thingy was already known way before. Remember all of those slide things? Or pretty much any mechanical locking mechanism with a slider?

Lets not call something innovation when its just applying a existing solution and paradigm that people are already familiar with, and so bloody obvious to use.

Many things in a computer interface actually use symbolic things like that. Imagine if they all would be patented? We would still be dicking around with only a CLI(I quite like the CLI).

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166383)

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How were tablet prototype designs before the iPad was released?

The "obvious" swipe movement to unlock a device only became obvious after Apple came up with it. How come it wasn't "obvious" before the iPhone was released?

i completely support your statement. unfortunately, you and i are in the minority on this viewpoint and even if apple wins every case defending their patents (which i wholeheartedly believe they should), many people still wont understand whats happening.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (4, Interesting)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166573)

That's the whole point. The "obvious" rectangle with rounded corners only became obvious after Apple came up with it.

I think you're mixing up two words there; "obvious" and "popular".

You remember the 1994 device by Fidler, right?
http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-11-03-06-am.png%3Fw%3D604 [wordpress.com]

To him, a rectangle with rounded corners must simply have been an option. To others, sharper corners were an option. yet others had maybe pondered square devices, or round, or triangular.
Point is - none of them are "obvious" per se - they're simply one of many choices out there that, if you were to ask a person, would come up with.
There's certainly advantages to a rectangle - we're used to rectangles. Be it horizontally when dealing with TVs, computer screens, etc. or vertically when dealing with newspapers, magazines, books, etc.
There's also advantages to making the corners round. Making them razor sharp simply makes them uncomfortable to hold.
In that way you could say it's certainly a more obvious choice than a triangular, sharp-cornered, screen.

The thing Apple did do - through its marketing prowess, among other - is make it popular. But its popularity is not what makes it obvious.

Similarly slide-to-unlock. No, 'slide' mechanisms weren't very popular until the Apple's use of it. That in itself isn't what makes it obvious, though. The average lock on a public restroom stall may be what makes it obvious - because if you ask 100 people to come up with ways to perform an action (not necessarily unlock) given a 2D surface on which a continuous/non-continuous position may be tracked, 'slide' is more than likely to come up as one of the first suggestions.
So why didn't others use it before? Because there weren't 100 'others'. There was Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, essentially. Most everything else were what you would now call 'feature phones' and unlocking those is pretty universal.. '*, OK' or '#, OK'. Maybe that was patented, too, and everybody licensed that from whoever held that patent. I should hope not, though. They copied that model - Windows Mobile required pushing an on-screen 'unlock' button or *, followed by an on-screen button or the 'enter' key, for example. If Microsoft were told by, say, Ericsson that they patented 'a two-tap method for unlocking' and to quit using it and also get all devices banned from sale (instead of just licensing it out for something a little less ridiculous than e.g. $10/device), odds are that Microsoft would have implemented a slide action - and thought of 50 more ways, patented them all, etc.

There is a difference between these two, though.
The former is form following function. Nobody wants to be jabbed in the hands by the throwing star tablet and look at the accompanying screen because it's just impractical - so the rectangle with more or less rounded corners is something that you eventually tend to evolve toward. Granting a patent on that, or even its use as a component in a patent (design or otherwise) is shenanigans.

The latter, however, is completely arbitrary. To use the bathroom stall analogy - there's knobs you have to turn, buttons you have to push, bars that you have to flip over. If the cleaning crew wants to access the maintenance room, they may have to enter a pin, or hold up a card (NFC), etc.
There's so many ways in which to implement a device lock/unlock method that at least when faced with patent litigation, it's not worth the bother to fight over keeping a 'slide' mechanism on your device unless you're fighting it out of principle (i.e. believe the patent should not have been granted OR that it should be FRAND).
That's not to say that the horizontal slide is innovative, ground-breaking, etc. Just a lot more 'meh'.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (4, Informative)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166225)

"Putting aside the question of whether a company can patent stuff like a rectangle with rounded edges"

OK I expect this from an Android fan forum, but I expect more out of Slashdot.

Apple has a trade dress patent. There are around 10 individual characteristics that make up the image of an iPhone. This includes rounded corners, grid of icons that can be swiped, lower set of icons that are static, edge to edge glass, black or white with chrome borders, etc.

Apple does not own a patent over any of the individual characteristics. To say they do is flat out ignorant. To violate trade dress, you need to copy all or almost all of the individual characteristics. Simply having rounded corners is not something that Apple has an exclusive license on.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0, Troll)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166439)

You realize a common sense post like yours will quickly be downmodded as flamebait, trolling, even off topic? Slashdot is no longer interested in intelligent dialogue. They are all in a frenzy over 'rounded corners'. It's a little sickening.

I suspect a good number on here haven't even looked at the patents found to be in violation, let alone what trade dress is. At this point I've given up on any attempt to discuss it. It's like a liberal guest on Fox News. Pointless.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (4, Informative)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#41167007)

Have you read the D504889 patent?

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166227)

I love your comment on "obvious design features" Everyone hates the man on top don't they? I don't own a single Apple product but please give me a fuckin break when you say that the raft of phones today didn't happen because of the innovation the iPhone brought to the market 7 years ago. Yes OBVIOUS TODAY.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

WolfgangPG (827468) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166369)

Cross License. Microsoft spends a lot of money licensing other people's tech and in return they expect others to license their tech.

Though it does seem like it would be hard for "the little guy" to improve upon Apple or Microsoft's designs because I doubt they can afford to license Apple's patents.

And of course I don't see how you can patent a rectangle with rounded edges. It amazes me that no one rounded the corner on a rectangle until 2007 /sarcasm :)

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166379)

Three things:

1. Samsung is not a startup

2. Apple is not a patent troll.

3. Microsoft managed to create a smartphone that does not look and feel and operate like an iPhone.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166875)

And iPhone made a smartphone that looked and operated much like the preexisting tablet computers.

Its a grid of icons above a bar with button(s) on it.

Its obvious basic functionality, much of which has existed in some form for years or even decades.

That isn't inventive or innovative.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166415)

It's not possible to do anything really, if you're a small time independent. I wrote my own video and audio codecs, encryption algorithms, and distributed file transfer protocols, virtual machine, and put together a secure unified messaging / VOIP / File sharing system. It's basically in beta -- All the features work, and I'm just working out a few small scaling issues. I wrote every line of code myself. My "dependencies" are OpenGL, Pulse Audio, X11 or Win32 -- Basically, an OS, and low level audio / video APIs. I didn't implement anyone else's protocols or formats, and still the Software Patent Minefield prevents me from monetising or open sourcing the system. Fortunately this is a multi-year "free time" project that began as a bunch of smaller learning experiences, not my bread and butter. Eg: "I wonder how would one create a video codec?", I asked myself, then just did it -- The same for making compilers, interpreters, encryption, etc. (cipher block chaining can turn any one way hash into a two way cipher). Making new software isn't really hard at all; It doesn't take genius, just takes time.

Due to the current patent laws I can't afford to publish my software (except to friends and relatives) -- A single lawsuit would be the end of me even though I've never looked at a technology related patent. If I open source the code, that just opens me up to patent trolls so they can try to find their exact way of doing something in my code, then sue me for retroactive "damages" caused -- Yes, even just my own personal use of the code I wrote myself can be considered infringing and thus "damaging".

The messed up thing is that both Patent and Copyright in the USA were created for the express purpose of benefiting the society as a whole. Patents and Copyrights grant a monopoly over works for a limited period of time to incentivize creators to make their works open to the public.... Uhm, that falls flat on it's face when you consider that Open Source projects jump the gun -- They don't want the monopoly at all, and explicitly allow the public to benefit directly at the time of publication. So, since Free (libre) Open Source projects already meet the stated purposes of the patent & copyright laws, forfeiting the monopoly by choice, shouldn't they gain exemption from patent lawsuits to repay them? Ah, but then anyone could just implement a software patent and open source it, and the whole software patent market falls flat on it's face, see? Patents are stupid -- Any Artificial Scarcity of Information is stupid in the Information Age.

The USA's forefathers didn't contemplate a market would exist in which people would create things explicitly for the public to use free of charge. The founders weren't perfect, that's why they allowed amendments... As it stands it's questionable whether one can even place something into the public domain as soon as its created (Automatic copyright + "It's free" + "Nope, changed my mind, its not free" == ??) We should be treating every law with deep suspicion and testing every law's effectiveness via the scientific method. Otherwise we're operating by untested hypotheses. We don't really know if patent or copyright laws are actually beneficial to society as a whole. I'm fed up and ready to do the experiment: Abolish patents.

I say "not possible to do anything", but what I mean is anything of real importance. Making games is a less risky venture, so I'll try that on the side now.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166871)

curious, how does it prevent you from open sourcing? wouldn't patents just prevent people from actually using it?

Stop living in fear (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166893)

Form an LLC (super cheap) and release the software.

You will not be sued, at worse you might get a letter claiming you violate some patent. If so just ignore it.

The WORST that can happen is yes, your company gets sued. So then you close it off and you are done.

But far more likely is nothing with happen and you can just continue to sell your software.

The way things are now it's already like you have already been shut down. Why pre-suppose a very unlikely case?

I'm not saying the software patent situation is not bad. I am saying that it's silly to do nothing because of abstract fear with the end result being the same as if your fears came true.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166433)

I'd say do it, but just not in the USA.

Innovate outside the U.S.A (2)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166457)

even if it's on a remote system in Europe... and don't sell any products in the U.S.A. directly. Outsource the importation into the U.S.A.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166525)

seriously, do you have any critical thinking skills? Is Apple stopping you from writing any kind of software? Apple is suing Samsung because Samsung spent 3 months doing a crash drive on copying.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (2)

kbonin (58917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166715)

The modern American Software start-up business model is simple - rush to market, and hope to either: 1) Be acquired by someone with a large enough patent portfolio to provide defensive cover, or 2) become highly profitable quick enough that you can afford to defend yourself by the time a predator notices you.

Note that #2 is becoming more difficult as the big patent predators like Intellectual Ventures are moving their way down the food chain, hoping to capture a larger share of start-up capital before companies die due to market pressures.

Left unchecked, the current patent system has begun the end game of grinding small companies and start-ups into the dust, and with them most of the innovation (and jobs) that used to occur. Apple v Everyone was just the first really big play, while IV tries to remain under the radar while tuning a process intended to eat most of the small fish before anyone realizes the pond is almost empty.

Wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of the monster he helped create...

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166789)

That's the whole point. These laws and lawsuits are a way of stifling competition, they have little to do with protecting innovation.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (1)

rhp997 (250494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166943)

That's the point. Barriers to entry always benefit existing companies.

Re:How is it even possible to innovate these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166951)

I'm sorry but I have already patented the term "indie software" so if you want to do that, you need to pay for a license.

There's a reason Android is popular (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165649)

And it's not because they're like "Cheap iPhone knock-offs".

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165731)

What is it then? Is it because it's an ad supported way for google to deliver ads to more people? I hope google dies. I do not want to see an ad supported future for the internet.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165783)

I have a lot of stuff on my android devices that aren't ad supported. I've had ad supported stuff on an iPhone. Overall, I'd have to say, I like the feel, smoothness and flexibility of an Android device significantly more than the iDevices out there.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (-1, Troll)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166277)

I have a lot of stuff on my android devices that aren't ad supported. I've had ad supported stuff on an iPhone. Overall, I'd have to say, I like the feel, smoothness and flexibility of an Android device significantly more than the iDevices out there.

Seriously? I've heard many arguments on why people like Android over iOS, but I've never heard anyone claim "smoothness." Even the newest builds of Android after 'Project Butter' are still significantly more laggy than iOS. Google made a mistake by rushing their touch interface after they saw the first iPhone. It was poorly done and needs to be completely rewritten.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (2, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166399)

Sorry, the iPhone 4S I had felt decently laggy, even with almost no apps on it. Aside from the web browser, the web browser was snappy, but that was about it. Some older Samsuck Android phones I had were pretty bad, but the HTC phones and a Toshiba Tablet that I've used have typically been better.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166539)

Clearly you haven't tried Jelly Bean yet. It's far smoother than past versions, even more so than ICS. Granted they may have rushed the initial versions, Google has at least continued to innovate and improve with each subsequent version and, probably more of benefit for people who like to tinker with things, doesn't lock the fucking thing down like iOS.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (5, Insightful)

OoberMick (674746) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165803)

What is it then? Is it because it's an ad supported way for google to deliver ads to more people? I hope google dies. I do not want to see an ad supported future for the internet.

So what instead? Pay to visit sites? Or are you expecting sites to run on fairy dust?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166201)

What is it then?

It's a phone and tablet operating system that works better than iOS, and on more devices. That's why more people buy it.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (-1, Troll)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166407)

"It's a phone and tablet operating system that's on more devices. That's why more people buy it."

Fixed that for you....

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166631)

No, you didn't. You're just being an arse.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (2, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166815)

Would this be like someone in the 18th century complaining about newspapers supporting themselves with advertisements because they don't want to see an ad-supported future for mass media?

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166343)

That's precisely why Android is popular. Very few normal consumers walk into a cell phone store with any clue what they want, and no awareness of any brand other than the iPhone. They might know "Droid" because of the commercials. Their friends have an iPhone, and they want one. But when they see the price, they move to commodity Android phones, because they're "the same thing". I've heard more than a few people say they have an iPhone and pull out a cheap commodity Android device, thinking "iPhone" is synonymous with "smart phone". And salespeople are happy to shift them over to the low- or no-cost Android phones. High-feature, just-released Android phones simply don't sell well except to those who are aware of Android and know what features they want in a phone, and know it isn't an iPhone.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166507)

Not for the past couple years, really. The Galaxy S3, for example, is no cheaper than an iPhone, and is selling very well. The non-techsavvy customer goes into the store and notices that the iPhone still has a dinky 3.5" screen compared to the S3's 4.8" screen. Then the salesperson points out that the iPhone still doesn't support 4G data.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166359)

Actually, that's the entire reason Android is popular. The HTC Dream came out in 2008 @ $129 on T-Mobile, undercutting the $199 iPhone. It was unarguably a "cheap knock-off". It was priced to entice people to join the Android camp instead of Apple. Now you have the tribalism that goes on amongst Android and Apple camps (there are Android fanboys just as much as Apple and they suffer the same "reality distortion"). It's typical human behavior. Now, look up "commitment bias" and "irrational escalation" and see that you are a sheep who bought into a marketing ploy just like the Apple kiddies. Then look up "confirmation bias" just for fun. Are Android handsets cheap knock-offs now? No. They were when no one knew how Android would fare in the market. Was Android OS a cheap knock-off? Yes--it was first a rip-off of BlackBerry and then a poor, buggy rip-off of iOS. Now, it is different, refined, and better/worse than iOS in its own ways. TO EACH THEIR OWN.

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166467)

Actually it is. As much as I hate to admit it, MS actually made the innovative phone. As has been noted the problem with the iPhone is that at the end of they day, it is a $2000 phone. With Android on sale at Virgin and Boost and Cricket, all one needs is $200 to start, and then scrap together $50 every month, if you can. Android also has the inexpensive unlimited data plans and tethering plans which provides cheap internet. I know many people who have android phones because it provides cheap internet to watch movies. MS and Apple does not have this.

Not all Android phones are cheap, but Android is targeting the low end of the market so it can claim high sales volume. It is also clear that, unlike MS, many Android manufacturers are not putting a lot of thought in the UI for the phone. As mentioned, most of the effort is to provide cheap cell service after the sale.

And this cannot be repeated enough. HTC is reportedly paying MS $5 largely because Android is based on Linux and MS thinks it owns Linux, even though all legal battle indicates Linux is free from such infringement. OTOH we now have a legal decision that says Apple owns these patents for about another 15 years, and HTC is now crying fowl that it is unfair they have to pay license fees? WTF!

Re:There's a reason Android is popular (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166795)

Just because Android devices are, generally, cheaper, doesn't mean they rip-off the high-end devices and appeal solely to the lower-end tier. Android's most popular models are all comparable (in price) to the iPhone - I'm talking about the likes of the Galaxy S III and the HTC One X. Sure, there's always the Apple "premium", but those devices are generally more powerful and more feature-packed than the latest iOS device.
Likewise, those that can't afford an iOS device would just as likely get a different device anyway if Android didn't exist. Going by the above logic, Blackberry and Symbian Nokia is somehow infringing upon Apple because their devices are cheaper. It doesn't make sense.
Android doesn't target one market and this is what people don't get - there's high-end, low-end and midrange Android devices, all targeting different markets from different Manufacturers. Apple targets just one market - the high-end.

Never give in to extortion (5, Insightful)

sa666u (2626427) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165675)

Of course they won't settle. One should never negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Never give in to extortion (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166431)

So why does the Federal Government settle all the time with Goldman Sachs....

Re:Never give in to extortion (2)

sa666u (2626427) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166569)

Because they play for the same team. And you and I are not on that team. :)

Re:Never give in to extortion (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166685)

Reminds me of the Black Eyed Peas song Where Is The Love:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK

Innovation may be alive, but the individual innovator who does not work for a multinational is dead. Unable to create anything because they are frozen in fear over the threat of litigation.

Re:Never give in to extortion (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166917)

Wish I could mod you +6, Apple have become everything they pretended they were against.
I have multiple friends who abandoned Microsoft many years ago because they are an evil monopoly and are now vehement, blind Apple supporters. They are blind to see Apple is just as bad at the top as Microsoft was.

I don't want Apple to die, despite how much they deserve it for their disgusting atittudes. We need competition. but good lord do they need to be knocked down a few rungs, I am eager for Google and partners to do so. Although considering how poorly Apple has innovated the last couple of years in the handheld space, I suspect they are about to knock themselves off their own perch.

Apple vs. Samsung not Apple vs. Android (3, Insightful)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165683)

Of course it doesn't. Apple was after Samsung for the phone (hardware) and touchwiz (interface) components that were "copied". They are not interested in fighting Android (Google); yet....

Here's the thing... (5, Informative)

sudden.zero (981475) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165737)

...it wasn't just the shape of the tablet/phone it was about the overall deliberate copying that Samsung did. The biggest point was that Samsung had internally distributed documents comparing the Galaxy S III to the iPhone 4s, and said documents stated that their device needed to perform more like the iPhone.

Re:Here's the thing... (-1, Flamebait)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165927)

Apple's been copying everyone else since day one. Even iOS 5 is just their crappy iOS with Android features added to it like the notification pull-down menu, OTA updates etc. These are features that Android had for several years, finally Apple has gotten around to copying those features into iOS and somehow they have the audacity to say others are copying them?

Re:Here's the thing... (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166327)

Actually there were Cydia hacks for the iPhone 3G for the notification pull-down menu that predate Android. If anything, Apple copied from the developers of jailbroken software.

And OTA updates? Please, don't tell me you think Android invented them.

Re:Here's the thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166429)

Hooray for revisionist history!

HTC isn't Samsung (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165797)

When you put HTC phones, iPhone, and certain (not all) Samsung phones side by side, the HTC ones are the ones that look different. Which means Apple won't succeed, and won't try to succeed, with charges related to design patents. On the other hand, the different looks may also be the reason or part of the reason why Samsung is selling more phones right now than HTC.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165917)

HTC's radio quality tends to be the worst in the industry, which is a damn shame because I like everything else about their designs better than Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Apple, et. al.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165941)

That and they make the current google phone. Other than the internation (quad core) version of the S3. The Google Nexus is the best phone out there in terms of usability in my opinion. It's a shame Samsung's S3 and Touchwiz are at the centre of this because Touchwiz actually sucks.

Re:HTC isn't Samsung (2)

shbazjinkens (776313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166611)

On the other hand, the different looks may also be the reason or part of the reason why Samsung is selling more phones right now than HTC.

Well that, at least, is about to change!

The GOP wants to take us back to the 1950s on wome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41165831)

"Republicans have female governors in Oklahoma (Mary Fallin), Arizona (Jan Brewer), New Mexico (Susana Martinez), and South Carolina (Nikki Haley), while Democrats only have two female governors, Christine Gregoire of Washington and Bev Perdue of North Carolina. Two of the Republican female governors (Haley and Martinez) are also minorities. Republicans will prominently feature Haley, Martinez, and Fallin in primetime this week at the convention.

Gregoire and Perdue will not run for reelection in 2012, so after the 2012 elections, Democrats may have no women governors. "

Gee, aren't you leftists dumb?

Re:The GOP wants to take us back to the 1950s on w (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166129)

When women go to the voting booth, remember it was a GOP majority in Congress and a majority of GOP governed states that ratified the 19th Amendment to allow women to vote along with equal pay after a democratically influenced Congress previously blocked the legislation. Also remember that it was Eisenhower that initiated legislation to incorporate women into the military and was also for the civil rights movement long before JFK (LBJ was even against passing the act and only did it in honor of Kennedy) and that the founder of Planned Parenthood also gave a speech to the KKK. Liberals do not and never have stood for minorities, despite how much they shamelessly try to take credit for those achievements.

About Cher Wang (3, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41165885)

I believe that one of the reasons for the lopsided Apple/Samsung verdict was the RDF surrounding St. Steven Jobs. People think of him as an inspirational figure, and they're likely to believe his company's claims.

I just wanted to state that Cher Wang is just as much an inspiration as Jobs, even though she hasn't sought the limelight or appeared in black turtlenecks at worldwide developer conferences.

"Indeed, she rarely makes headlines at all, although she started her own multibillion-dollar company and made her own fortune.

"Ms. Wang is one of the most powerful female executives in technology whom you have never heard of. The company she founded, the HTC Corporation, makes one out of every six smartphones sold in the United States, most of which are marketed under brands like Palm and Verizon."

more [nytimes.com]

She also founded VIA in 1987.

Re:About Cher Wang (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166301)

Not that I am suggesting anything specific about Ms. Wang, but somehow she studied at Berkley after taking college prep school in Oakland, CA, which she went to after leaving school in Taiwan. Consider the expense of that (nowadays this would cost at least $150,000 with the visa fees and whatnot).

The article hints at the already-present richness of her family:

"When she was a young girl, Ms. Wang said, her father would take her on monthly visits to a local hospital he helped finance"

As usual, the rich and powerful got that way by being handed a HUGE head start. It is hard to find anyone in such powerful positions who actually has a real rags-to-riches story.

Nothing wrong with all that, but do consider how much better you would have done in life if your parents were well off financiers.

Re:About Cher Wang (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166703)

If I had teenaged daughters, between Cher Wang and Paris Hilton, I know which daughter of the rich and powerful I'd want them to aspire to be like. There's nothing wrong with making the most of your huge head start to produce something wonderful of your own. It certainly beats pissing it away in an attention seeking life devoid of any real value.

Pyrrhic victory for Apple ? (2)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166083)

Sure, 1B$ looks nice on the surface. But some victories are too costly (sow the seeds of final defeat) if they create and rally your opponents. HTC is one sign.

Thanks to activist shareholders, Apple cannot even settle for something reasonable (~100 M$ & xlicence) and will have the full slog ahead; including most likely losing supply of their high-res (RetinaTM) displays from Samsung. Do they have a second-source? From my PoV hi-res is the only Apple advantage -- software is fungible (but maybe not for the mass-market).

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166145)

LG will be making the screens for the next iPhone and iPad, if the rumors are right.

LG also has a line of Android phones, but they aren't as successful as Samsung's, so Apple doesn't currently feel threatened by them.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ? (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166305)

Problem is, Samsung still owns important patents on those modern displays, so if LG makes them for Apple instead, Samsung can just makes sure it increases licensing costs on those patents.

The issue is that even if you find a manufacturer to manufacture alternatives to Samsung that in all likelihood:

- Samsung still produces the core components you need to manufacture the technology

and/or:

- Samsung has patents on the technology you are producing

When you're producing a device that makes use of so many different wireless technologies, modern displays, audio, battery powered, cameras and so on and so forth, it's almost a certainty that you can't write Samsung out of the equation completely.

Re:Pyrrhic victory for Apple ? (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166473)

They're called contracts - Samsung isn't going to stop supplying Apple with parts. FYI Samsung would and have sued people over IP infringement. It happens all the time.

Writing on the wall... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166109)

Android is dead, it just doesn't realize it yet. You may as well go and create an AppleID because your next phone will be awesome and have rounded corners and everything.

Re:Writing on the wall... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166949)

Apple does not make keyboard phones.

I am not going to buy a smartphone without a keyboard.

I love my Samsung Epic 4g, except for sprints terrible data speeds.

Blatant Abuse of the Patent System (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166123)

It's pretty well accepted that the patent system, in its current form, is completely dysfunctional. Apple has been blatantly abusing this system for years. Recently, their reduced innovation and eroding market share have led to increased lawsuits -- they've been holding these cards for a rainy day. There is a real issue in this country where literal interpretation trumps common sense in the eyes of the law and that needs to be rectified. Could you imagine if people actually read and literally interpreted the entire bible? People might actually start to realize what a farce religion is as well. How about people thinking the second amendment should give everybody the right to go to their local sports store and purchase an assault rifle? I'm all for the second amendment, but no document should ever trump common sense - these weapons didn't even exist when the second amendment was written! Why was a jury even involved in this Apple vs Samsung dispute if the decision was solely based on blindly following the rules of a terrible, dated system that should no longer apply in this industry? As long as people in this country continue to ignore common sense, progress and innovation will continue to slow to a crawl. Apple sees the writing on the wall and they're hitting the panic-button. While nobody can blame them for what they're doing, we can blame the patent system and the entire process that goes with it that allows them the ability to bully competition and kill innovation.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166501)

Yeah because nobody sued Apple over IP....oh wait.....

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System (1)

brojamma (2718155) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166595)

Who said anything about Apple never being sued? Even bullies can be bullied. The bottom line is that as long as the laws remained unchanged, they're all well within their rights to do what they're doing.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166781)

That's my point. Apple was within their rights to sue Samsung. Samsung was within their rights to sue Apple. If patents are flawed then they need to change.

But we have had patents since the beginning and to claim that what Apple is doing is outrages intentionally omits the history of patent suits.

Re:Blatant Abuse of the Patent System (1)

brojamma (2718155) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166829)

You clearly didn't read the original post: "While nobody can blame them for what they're doing, we can blame the patent system and the entire process that goes with it" The system is the problem - not Apple. The system is what needs to change.

Apple is the bad guy. (5, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166179)

I've been following this since day one, and I gota say, Apple comes out looking like the bad guy every time. Litigate > innovate in Apple's eyes. Always has been. Remember the Apple clones? Every card carrying geek here knows that Apple "borrowed" a vast majority of the iPhone's functionality from smart phones that existed 5-7 years before the first iPhone. That Apple suing because they were "copied" is utterly ridiculous, at least to people who watched the smart phone race from the beginning. Only the uninitiated find any validity to Apple's arguments.

And Apple, you feel people are being deceived into buying non Apple products? You who deceive people into buying Apple products with deceptive ads, demagoguery and appealing to people's ignorance about technology? How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport? Where did the in house Apple benchmarks go that supported your wild claims that the Mac was faster than the PC. It wasn't that long ago that you changed the meaning of PC (oh that's a workstation, not a PC) so you could falsely claim that your computers were better than any PC running any OS. Deceived indeed. Your empire is built upon deception, hardware lock-in and lack of freedom for consumers.

Re:Apple is the bad guy. (4, Informative)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166435)

How long ago was it that you claimed the Power PC was better than the Intel chip you now sport?

Well, it was during the time that the PowerPC was better (by which I assume you mean faster) than Intel. Its architecture was always superior to the x86. That was most of the 90s. It was only after Motorola took it over, repositioned it and stopped trying to keep up that Intel's performance overtook it again with new architectures and technologies. Apple just did the pragmatic thing (unthinkable to some) to keep their products competitive.

Re:Apple is the bad guy. (3, Funny)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166809)

The change was a supply issue. IBM maintained development and production of the Power processor and PowerPC. It was still better than x86 but the gap closed once Intel adopted AMD's 64 bit architecture.

Re:Apple is the bad guy. (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166635)

Apple created the clone market jackass.

Really which smartphones did Apple rip off and why didn't anyone sue Apple? You think RiM wouldn't sue Apple if they thought they infringed on their IP?

Apple creates products people want. If people didn't like Apple's products they wouldn't buy them.

The rest of rant is just pure rubbish:

1. Apple switch to Intel processors because IBM could not meet Apple's supply demand. It was a supple issue, that forced Apple to switch. 2. The term "Workstation" predates Personal Computer.

Clueless....

Re:Apple is the bad guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41166971)

Meh, this is slashdot. Everything even moderately pro-Linux/anti-Apple gets modded up, and vice-versa.

This is not new.... (5, Informative)

rimcrazy (146022) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166287)

I worked in the Semiconductor industry from the mid 70's up to around 2003. In the startup phase all startups were sued by the big guns but there was always a method to the madness. You don't sue a company that has no money unless it is defensive. They would all sit back and wait until you started to get successful. They the suits come in and throw a stack of patents 3' high on the table and say "Today we are running a special, we want 1% per foot on your revenue or we will litigate each and every one of these along with a few hundred more we did not bring today and if you settle right now we will throw in a set of Ginsu Knives" Both companies end up settling for something and a cross license deal and life goes on. It is what it is. A lot of the patents are so basic you could not make a chip without violating them. TI has one around injection molded packages that you could not make a plastic package without violation. It's probably expired by now but I'm sure they have "refreshed" it 10 times over.

HTC benefits more than anyone from this verdict (2, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166365)

HTC was king of Android phones a few years ago. Once Samsung started stealing Apple tech, they took the crown from HTC.

Now that HTC and Samsung should be competing on an even playing field again, I predict HTC will overtake Samsung for good this time.

The trial was botched (1, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166945)

The jury did not seem to think objectively [1] and also appear swayed by the foreman who seems to have gotten away with throwing out the biggest piece of evidence in Samsung's defense[2]. I was surprised that the trial went as it did, handled by a judge with very little experience[3], considering the future of the mobile industry was riding on it. "Rounded corners and Rectangular design"? Righ, Apple, you might as well be suing everyone in the industry becuase I can't find a device that _doesn't_ infringe on that. Apple went after Samsung because it's their biggest competitor.

[1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 [groklaw.net]
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963 [groklaw.net]
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57497096-37/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/ [cnet.com]

Time to beef up your Dutch... (1)

knarf (34928) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166955)

The term 'going Dutch' are usually applied to situations where you are supposed to take care of yourself in a group situation. Now those Dutch are pretty crafty folk, and do they have some good ideas every now and then. One of those ideas has been inscribed on a wall to remind people of what happens when you give in to tyrants. The monument was made to commemorate 30 resistance fighters who fought in a struggle which makes this patent business pale beyond recognition, but the inspiration given by these lines works for all struggles against tyrants of any sort:

Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht,
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen,
dan dooft het licht...

This translates to

'a people who give in to tyrants,
will lose more than body and property,
the flame (literally 'light') will be extinguished'

Of course there is no reason to give in to these silly demands of a commercial entity which has grown beyond its capacities for reason. Of course the CEO of said entity should think different from the way he currently does, and steer his ship around for fear of running it into the minefield of his own ordination.

And of course the way the patent system is abused - not only in the USA but worldwide - undermines the stated concepts which form the grounds for implementing those laws. Anyone who tries to explain this away should read those lines again. If you don't understand Dutch or English, feed them to your favourite translation program or service.

Now that I think of it there is a saying in the USA which applies to this as well:

The price of freedom (or liberty) is eternal vigilance

What does HTC have TO settle? (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166999)

HTC has been making smart phones and PDAs for longer than the iPhone existed and those post iPhone have very little in common. They certainly don't ape the "trade dress" of the iPhone or iPad which is what got Samsung in trouble. Neither the shape of their phones, nor with HTC "Sense" user interface looks remotely like anything from Apple except in superficial ways. Indeed Sense has appeared over the top of several smart phone operating systems, not just Android and doesn't resemble iOS either.

So I think HTC have good reason to tell Apple to go fuck themselves. They probably also benefit from Samsung's misfortune given that the two of them are the leading smart phone vendors on Android and therefore in direct competition even if they share the same ecosystem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?