×

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 Wins Again — ITC Rules They Didn't Violate Samsung Patents

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the mercy-rule-goes-into-effect-soon dept.

Cellphones 149

An anonymous reader writes "A preliminary ruling from the International Trade Commission found that Apple did not violate four of Samsung's patents in the design of the iPhone. 'The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.' The complaint was filed by Samsung in 2011, and a final confirmation is due next January. Apple has similar claims against Samsung awaiting ITC judgment; the preliminary ruling is expected in mid-October."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (-1, Troll)

DevIA (2730955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345619)

I think we can all agree that Apple is an innovative company. It's sad to see Google trying to destroy Apple with proxy companies like Samsung. We all know Google is jealous of iOS. They want Android to be as good as iOS but it never will be because they use Java while iOS is objective-c based.

I just hope Google would stop these stupid patent wars.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345641)

Wow, just wow. This level of being deluded is on level with someone who is indoctrinated by a religion.

I guess I won't even bother trying to put holes in your arguments because they kind of speak for themselves.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345645)

Check his post history. Single comment from a first time poster. A flame baiting troll if ever there was one

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (-1, Troll)

Haxagon (2454432) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345655)

Funny how Slashdot as a whole can immediately recognize this crap as trolling, but falls for the first-post MS messages every single time.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345785)

It's harder with the MS posts, as there are three likely possibilites. There is the possibility of paid shill, troll, or in some circumstances, true fanboy. With Apple posts, I think the rate of paid shill is extremely low, if at all, but you could never tell the difference between paid shill and fanboy anyway. Same sort of problem with trolls ... some people actually believe the same statements a troll would make. It's getting hard to tell who's who around here.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (5, Funny)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346269)

It's getting hard to tell who's who around here.

Hi,nice to meet you. I'm neither a shill nor a fanboy. I'm an ass - I don't expect you'll have any difficulty trouble telling me apart from the others. ;)

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346335)

I also don't know how to check for typos...

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347225)

Nice to meet you Type44Q. I'm a Fast Turtle and I never check for typo's. See I'm always tryen to get a frst prose

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346371)

Actually I tend to think many of these trolls are in fact Android fanboi's hoping to get exactly the response that the second poster did, or possibly just a true troll hoping to stir up a flame war.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

atlasdropperofworlds (888683) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348077)

Some of us also don't really mind microsoft, and actually like some of their stuff. I do like their dev tools myself. But atm MS's biggest positive feature is that it's not Apple.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (4, Funny)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345795)

Funny how Slashdot as a whole can miss sarcasm even if it slaps them in the face, hard.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345723)

It is cowardly to set up an account just to troll. A good troll does not fear alternating between insight and subtle nonsense using the same account.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346175)

Like Dr. Bob!

I miss him so....

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347983)

You know, of course, that that person was actually Grub. Check Grub's history from around that time, he made a post and signed off Dr Bob, and then admitted the whole thing when it was pointed out.

(Unless I'm thinking of someone else, and not Dr Bob, but it is certainly the case that Grub is a troll.)

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346393)

Check his post history. Single comment from a first time poster. A flame baiting troll if ever there was one

Poe's Law, man. This is Apple we're talking about, after all. Steve's acolytes aren't known for being sensible or subtle in the first place...

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345671)

More like: DevIA actually doesn't like Apple, but knows how to troll and bring out the breathless Slashdot nerd rage posts.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345673)

Don't forget that God is just a representation of human weakness/suffering.

The sort of character which would otherwise go to Church every Sunday can manifest itself in other ways.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

youn (1516637) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345841)

Woosh! that was supposed to be (and is) funny :)

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345901)

It's too close to what actual rabid fans spout to be funny. You can also freely swap the company names and get to the other end of spectrum.

In other words, it's not outrageous enough to be clearly sarcastic - not that I believe that being sarcastic was the reason to get a new account and first minute first post here.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346369)

It's too close to what in my whiny Slashdot nerd imagination rabid fans spout to be funny.

FTFY

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345691)

Ditto......Samsung and others are just trying to be patent trolls to defend themselves from copying. They need to go do their own R&D and come out with original products and keep innovation alive instead of copying Apple and playing follow the leader or building off of what they have set in place.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346027)

Nope. Apple is a cunt. Everyone who buys apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.

Re:Highlights Apple's Innovative Grab (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347377)

Don't forget they stole Java from oracle. This is no surprise given the fact the founders are communists one of which coming from the heart of the USSR. They're savages that just don't know how to live in an respectable society.

Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345681)

HATE! HATE! HATE!

Software patents are evil!!!

But HATE! HATE! HATE!

Apple is teh evil!

What's a confused Slashdotter to think?

Re:Dissonance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345689)

...er, sorry. Delete the word "Software" from above. These aren't software patents. I WUZ BLINDED BY TEH HATE!!1!1

Re:Dissonance (1)

DevIA (2730955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345725)

What you mean these aren't software patents. Even TFS says it's a method that verifies that user has been allowed to run the software/game, aka DRM.

Re:Dissonance (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345791)

It's easy: hate software patents for being weapons of anti-competition rather than protectors of innovation, and hate Apple for using the weapons.

Re:Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345853)

It's easy: hate software patents for being weapons of anti-competition rather than protectors of innovation, and hate Apple for using the weapons.

Actually they are both protection for innovators and weapons of anti-competition. Abolishing patents is a bit like tort reform has proven to be in the USA. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we abolish patents you will loose the protection that they do afford to inventors but the power or corporations to rip you off will not even be dented.

Re:Dissonance (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346039)

Hardware patents perhaps, but personally I don't think software patents have helped in any way to further innovation. They are only a weapon.

Re:Dissonance (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346705)

Hardware patents perhaps, but personally I don't think software patents have helped in any way to further innovation. They are only a weapon.

So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work? Creating algorithms is one example of a software development activity that is by far not always a trivial. I can see why granting a once-click-shopping patent or a slide-to-unlock patent is just plain dumb, I can also see why people are frustrated by big corporations patenting obvious stuff by the shipload and then using the expense of patent lawsuits as a tool to drive small competitors out of business. All of these are things that are wrong with the current system. However, I also fail to see why a guy developing hardware deserves patent protection but a guy developing software doesn't because that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.

Re:Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346823)

"So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection"

We can stop right here and answer: Correct. No patent protection.

Re:Dissonance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347095)

"So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection"

We can stop right here and answer: Correct. No patent protection.

Ok, I'll bite. People keep telling me that but nobody ever explains WHY, they just repeat the worn out old line that 'software patents should be abolished' which they regard as a self evident truth, kind of like religious fundamentalists who think quoting scripture is an unassailable counter to any argument. WHY are algorithms so obviously un-patentable? Explain yourself...

Re:Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347515)

Wrong question. Why should you pass laws to protect algorithms? If you can't prove the need, the default should be NO law. Just because I worked hard, is not a reason to forbid some from doing something.

Re:Dissonance (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347809)

I don't personally support the current patent system, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious: because if you can't put restrictions on the use of the algorithm, your competitors are going to come along, and use it themselves without either incurring the R&D cost or compensating your for it. Thus they're able to offer competing products at a lower cost, making computer science R&D a counter-productive strategy to running a competitive business (i.e. stifling innovation). Patents are supposed to be the solution to this problem.

Practically speaking, the current system is just broken. The basis of it is important, but the way it's being used is extremely harmful.

Re:Dissonance (1)

tgibbs (83782) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348209)

We have patent laws to reward people and firms for investing time and money in developing new products, and also to reward them for making their discoveries public rather than trying to retain them as trade secrets. It is hard to see what makes software different. You can certainly get a patent for inventing a product that is assembled or built using standard components, which anybody could use to create a similar product (once they have the idea). Like hardware, software may be novel or not, obvious or not. Like hardware, software can add substantial value to an endeavor.

So what, specifically, makes software patents different from hardware patents such that inventors should not be rewarded for their efforts?

Or is it just that you don't like patents in general, and you see innovators in software as more vulnerable to attack?

Re:Dissonance (5, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346859)

that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.

No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.

Re:Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347193)

that's one thing the patent system currently does right, which is giving inventors some protection against being ripped off by predators.

No it doesn't. Unless your legal team and legal budget are bigger than who ever is ripping you off, the current system provides zero effective protection. It has always been a system by the big players (and their lawyers) for the big players.

Now tell us how abolishing software patents is going to change all that and bring power back to the little guy? All abolishing patents will accomplish is make it even easier for the big guys to rip you off. At least with the current system, even if you don't have the legal resources to take the big guys, you can always get lawyers to work on a percentage basis. What did Apple get out of that patent verdict against Samsung $1 billion wasn't it? If your suit had merit and you won, even if your lawyers take a 50% cut, you would still have come out a suit like that $500 million richer than when you started. Nobody says that suing a mega-corp is easy or cheap but under the current system at least you can sue.

Re:Dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347187)

Algorithms (and more generally mathematics) is not patentable anyway. And we seem to be progressing just fine.

Re:Dissonance (2)

horza (87255) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347281)

Yes that is what everybody but yourself is saying. Algorithms, mathematical formulae, are not patentable for a very good reason. If we are not able to sell phones with rounded corners because a certain fruit has a monopoly then that sucks for consumers but the world goes on. If somebody is able to block research that will further the scientific developments of mankind then this is a bad thing.

Software patents are recognised as wrong in every single country in the world except for the US. Algorithms as wrong the whole world over.

Phillip.

Re:Dissonance (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347725)

Aha, so because patents on the one hand are causing a problem and on the other hand are solving one, you say that patents are a good idea?
I get it.

That's like saying shutting down democracy is a good idea for solving the global warming problem.

Re:Dissonance (1)

knarf (34928) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348041)

So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work?

As long as you implement your own version of that algorithm, yes. Software is protected by copyright, and that is enough. Just like it is enough for books and music.

Please explain why software needs patent protection, and what benefits you see in providing that protection.

Yes indeed (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348341)

"So what you are saying is that a guy who pours significant amounts of time into developing an algorithm, making it space and time efficient, modelling it to resolve concurrency issues, etc... should not get patent protection and that you are 'entitled' to use his algorithm without compensating him for all his hard work? "

There is a whole branch existing around that same concept of not getting money for algorithm you think of : that's called mathematic. You might have heard of it. Try patenting any mathematic cocnept even advanced one. A software is actually only a mathematical application in the very end. What you should be entitled to is to protect a specific implementation of such algorithm and it is called copyright. What you ask for, aptent of software, is akin to selling your cake (copyright) and then eating it (patent).

Inherent bias? (0)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345695)

I'd be curious to know the details regarding this technology because it seems to me like it covers very specific functionality. I mean, how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design. It gets me wondering if judges and juries aren't approaching these cases with the preconceived notion that Apple is an "innovator" and couldn't possibly have used someone else's technology. It seems most people's sense of innovation is dictated by how nice industrial design looks and feels.

Re:Inherent bias? (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345721)

how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.

Pretty obviously because Samsung did copy from Apple. But Apple didn't copy from Samsung. Samsung's case was a meritless tit-for-tat lawsuit.

Re:Inherent bias? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345855)

how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.

Pretty obviously because Samsung did copy from Apple. But Apple didn't copy from Samsung. Samsung's case was a meritless tit-for-tat lawsuit.

Spoken like a true Fanboi. Has St. Steve performed any miracles for you yet when you pray to him?

Re:Inherent bias? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347347)

Still waiting on Gene Roddenbury to step up and sue Apple for everything he can get for stealing his designs from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Sorry, but Apple shouldn't be able to sue for the way something looks when they stole the design themselves. Also, how can they get away with suing on an look but avoid getting sued on how something works when they are notorious for ignoring royalties on patents on just such issues.

Me thinks that Apply has too many fanboys in the courts letting their personal feelings interfere with their jobs.

Re:Inherent bias? (2)

toriver (11308) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348315)

Well, given that you misspelled his name and he has been dead for 20 years now...

notorious for ignoring royalties on patents

Only in your dreams, unless you can cough up some references.

"Fanboys in the courts"... seriously? Are Apple the new Jewish Cabal or something?

Re:Inherent bias? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345903)

Maybe that is the key. Apples patent is easy - does it bonce back or takes an action when the list is in the end? Any dummy can understand that. Samsungs patent is much more complicated - it involves actual technology. So you have to be good technician to understand.

Samsung loose, Apple wins. Conclusion: only patents on simple stuff pass.

Re:Inherent bias? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346147)

Or, as Johnnie Cochran would put it: "If lists bounce, you must denounce!"

Re:Inherent bias? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345911)

it's a preliminary ruling, it's not a final judgment in any sense. So at the moment, it means basically nothing.

Re:Inherent bias? (2)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346043)

The problem with specific patents is they're specific. This is great for innovation, because it means that the patentor can't sue to stop competitors, but it means the patentor can't sue to stop competitors.

As for Apple's patent's validity, you don;t have to like that design patents exist, you don't have to agree with the patent office for issuing them, but you do have to acknowledge that they DO EXIST and they HAVE BEEN ISSUED, which means they can be violated.

Re:Inherent bias? (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346125)

Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?

Re:Inherent bias? (2, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346981)

Perhaps instead, it could be that there's an inherent bias in being on slashdot, and that apple's case had merit, while samsung's didn't?

I think slashdot is so overrun by Google fans and Android fans that the exact opposite seems to be the case. There are lots of cases recently where people have been basly insulted for nothing but the crime of uttering an opinion favoring Apple.

Re:Inherent bias? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347531)

Well quite –that's exactly the point I was trying to make, that it's not the courts with the "inherent bias", it's the population of slashdot, with an enormous pro-android bias.

Re:Inherent bias? (5, Informative)

fwoop (2553110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346527)

The ITC is inherently biased for US companies when it comes to bans. A ban can be rejected if it is deemed to hurt the US economy, so there is almost no way a foreign firm can ever ban a US company's products. In fact, I am not sure this has ever been carried out.

Re:Inherent bias? (2)

godawful (84526) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346597)

It could also be that ones dislike of Apple can make them just as deluded. I'm not saying one way or the other here, but you see a lot of posts on /. of people blindly bashing apple.. Blindly, I'm sure they don't think that's the case, but none the less, when you can't look at both sides objectively (and honestly, we never get _all_ the details), then of course it's going to seem outrageous.

Re:Inherent bias? (3, Informative)

itsdapead (734413) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346633)

I mean, how does Apple win here but Samsung loses on something as ambiguous as design.

Because some of the Apple design patents were not ambiguous and listed a sufficiently distinctive combination of features to make it clear that Samsung had copied the original iPhone design. Meanwhile, everybody seems to forget that the jury did chuck out the infringement claims in relation to the iPad and the iPhone 4.

Re:Inherent bias? (1)

micheas (231635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347803)

The jury somehow concluded that a clunky phone with a keyboard violated Apple's design patent while the Galaxy Tab that is a dead ringer for the iPad and is almost indistinguishable from an at 20 feet away did not.

The jury's verdict didn't make much sense, they decided all the border line stuff in Apple's favor, and the stuff that Apple should win on unless the patents were declared invalid Samsung won. The jury decided to give Apple a little over a billion dollars and then spread the money over the claims. My calculations are that the verdict probably should have been about 1.4 billion, if they believed what my best guess is that they believed. However, if they didn't think the galaxy tab infringed, then I don't see how they came up with damages over 20 million. Just a crazy verdict.

Geez! (0)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345703)

If i ever get in trouble, I want Apple's lawyers defending me. They can't seem to do wrong.

Re:Geez! (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345719)

Or they are actually correct in their assertions of violations.

While one may disagree with the laws, until they are struck down they stand.

It's about money, not law (4, Informative)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346153)

With 600B+ market cap, whole market moves every time Apple moves. And with 600B+ market cap everyone expects Apple to grow even bigger. In a world driven by money (and only money) the only possible outcome will be Apple winning on all fronts, regardless of how much harm will it cause to everyone else (including consumers). Looking forward I expect judges mysteriously ruling in favor of Apple dubious patents and punishing competition every time regardless of their arguments. And even if tables turn in this debacle and Apple gets burned for the first time, I see Congress quickly passing a law "fixing it" - basically setting competition in an uphill battle against Apple or even outright graning monopoly on consumer electronics to Apple in some way.

Welcome to crony capitalism.

With 0.3-0.6% of GDP directly attributed to Apple and its basically unlimited funds for lobbying (bribing) politicians, your lovely (US) government cannot afford letting them lose their current market cap - it would harm whole market and trigger an avalanche of failing pension funds (lots of them also heavily invested into Apple itself) which in turn would bite government crooks in their lazy asses. Wall Street crooks also cannot afford Apple bubble popping exactly for the same reasons. Given that the biggest thread to Apple's profit is margin compression caused by maturing smartphone/tablet technology, I bet that both government and wall street will do everything they can to keep competition out of this space, heavily influencing courts, panels and commisions dealing with Apple's cases.

Re:It's about money, not law (4, Insightful)

sokoban (142301) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346401)

With 0.3-0.6% of GDP directly attributed to Apple and its basically unlimited funds for lobbying (bribing) politicians,

Except Apple spends 1/10th as much as Google does on lobbying and doesn't have a Political action committee to funnel money to politicians like how Google does.

your lovely (US) government cannot afford letting them lose their current market cap - it would harm whole market and trigger an avalanche of failing pension funds (lots of them also heavily invested into Apple itself) which in turn would bite government crooks in their lazy asses.

Because that really stopped antitrust cases against Microsoft in the 90's.

Re:It's about money, not law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346971)

They don't even need to lobby anymore. They can just sit there as an impending threat to the economy, much like the banks.

Re:It's about money, not law (2)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346899)

You know that not so long ago another company had a huge market cap, it was bigger than apples once adjusted for inflation. Their market cap is *lot* smaller now. You think this will turn out different? I don't think so.

Re:It's about money, not law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347769)

Apple barely lobbies at all. It has come up in several earnings conference calls. Their products lobby for them . . . :)

Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (4, Insightful)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345745)

Domestic company wins.

If this were an American company suing an American company, the ruling would be done around 2020. Then the damages would be minimized when a new government is sworn in.

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345825)

Apple's strategy involves suing people rather than innovating, and paying people off to find in their favor.

I'm actually almost happy when they win, because soon that will make them large enough for a massive anti-trust case to be levied against them, and since the US government isn't dependent on Apple the way they were dependent upon Microsoft, maybe it will actually have the balls to shut them down or break them up. Wouldn't that be awesome, Apple broken into a company called iApple and Macintosh Computer Corp.? Maybe further subdivision would be required to split up their music service from their mobile music device distribution, (iPod's) from their mobile phone company, from their tablet computer manufacturing and distribution, from the part of the company that makes computer peripherals, from the part that makes actual, real computers. Maybe even they can split off the part that writes software... Apple could be split about 6 different ways, and what a glorious day that would be.

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346149)

Why would that be glorious?

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346185)

Why would that be glorious?

Because somebody would likely upgrade the MacPro's.

I can dream, can't I?

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (1, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346301)

Because they're stifling innovation and right now that's about the only way they can be stopped. I find it funny the people expect anything other than the company with the highest worth in world history to win these cases.

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (4, Insightful)

toriver (11308) | about a year and a half ago | (#41348333)

How are they stifling innovation if they force companies to do things in a different way - that is, to innovate? "Copy someone's success" hasn't been new for ages.

Don't fandroids keep harping about all the new stuff in Android that iPhone doesn't? How were those innovations stifled?

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346103)

What part of "International Trade Commission" are you having trouble wrapping your 85ish IQ around?

Moron.

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346115)

Domestic company wins.

If this were an American company suing an American company, the ruling would be done around 2020. Then the damages would be minimized when a new government is sworn in.

Samsung has a plant in Texas.

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (1)

cinky (2632165) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346159)

most companies have factories in China - does that make them Chinese companies?

Re:Foreign Company Sues Domestic Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346565)

I guess the point being that Samsung do have some influence in US domestic issues (apart from selling their wares). Maybe if this happens many more times they decide that any expansion of manufacturing or job creation in the US isn't at the top of their list.

Nope... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345755)

Apple Wins Again

Nobody wins. We all lose.

Good News Everyone! (1)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345801)

*in his best prof farnsworth voice* Samsung and Apple finally settled their patent war in combat slaying each other. Now i've invented a new phone and we have to deliver the packets using this new ray I made that will transform the ship into radio waves.

What's that court called again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345863)

Is that the ITC or the iTC?

Re:What's that court called again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345883)

iSeewhatyoudidthere

Gotta laugh at em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345891)

Re:Gotta laugh at em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346267)

Misleading url, they're actually shown a previous iPhone and all those shown state that its better (2 of whom were definitely iPhone owners).

Does Apple make 3G Chips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345893)

I don't think apple makes the 3G chips in their phones. I think they buy them from someone else.

Samsung's going down! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346019)

YEAA! It's about time those fucktards get taken out of business by an honest, grassroots American company.

Are people not thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346071)

Apple does not make their 3G chips, they buy them companies like Infineon. And of course companies like Infineon would have licensed the patent from Samsung.
But imagine if Apple had lost, then samsung could licenses the same patent to chipset manufactures and from every company that uses those chipsets.

Re:Are people not thinking (2)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346279)

License for the technology doesn't come automatically when purchasing the chips. Infineon might obtain a license to manufacture, but the user of the chip (in this case Apple) must then obtain a license to use it.

Re:Are people not thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41348139)

Since you have a copy of the contract outlining all these licences can you post a copy? If not, why post bullshit and believe it is true?

Re:Are people not thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41348273)

Opps, replied to wrong person, should have been to the dick Fuzi719 replied to...

US Court, Korean Court (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346271)

In the US court, it was decided that the US company Apple did not violate any of Korean company Samsung's patents. In the Korean court, it was decided that the Korean company Samsung did not violate any of US company Apple's patents.

I wonder if someone had the idea to patent the three dots in menu items to inform users that another selection window will open instead of an action being performed. I mean, if "rubber banding" and "rounded corners" are all patentable, why not other obvious things?

Re:US Court, Korean Court (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347003)

The Korean court found Apple violated two (FRAND) Samsung patents and Samsung violated one (non-FRAND) Apple patent.

But don't let facts ruin your ignorance.

Old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346835)

Everyone should note that this is not about LTE patents. We're still waiting for that smackdown to begin. Perhaps it should be like football... watch the lawsuit unfold... bring your own beer and popcorn or whatever! =)

I wonder how much it cost Apple.. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347295)

I wonder how much it cost Apple to bribe the ITC?

To say the I dislike Apple and Apple products would be a massive understatement!

Nazgul 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41347509)

Hmm. If they keep this up we're going to have to revise that old joke about IBM's hoard of lawyers.

A look and feel patent ?!?! (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about a year and a half ago | (#41347735)

Apple should be sued by Gene Roddenberry's estate for the look and feel of the ipad being ripped off from Star Trek Data Pads.

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...