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!

Galaxy Tab Sales Ban Lifted, Samsung Sues Apple Over iPhone 5

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the where-we-stop-nobody-knows dept.

Iphone 196

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "A temporary sales ban on Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in the U.S. has been lifted by a U.S. court. District Judge Lucy Koh gave a court order rescinding a ban on U.S. sales that was part of a patent dispute with Apple. ... The ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 had been placed before a month-long patent trial between Apple and Samsung. In August, at the conclusion of that trial Apple was awarded a victory on many of its patent violation claims where it said Samsung had copied Apple's iPhone and iPad designs. It was also awarded more than $1bn (£664m) in damages. However, the jury found that Samsung had not violated the patent that was the basis for the ban on the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung, therefore, argued for the sales ban to be lifted." Samsung also went on the offensive against the iPhone 5 today, filing a motion to add the device to its ongoing patent infringement suit against Apple. Meanwhile, on another front, some good news for Apple: Motorola Mobility, owned by Google, has withdrawn its second complaint against Apple to the ITC. The complaint was filed in August over patent infringement claims involving several minor features. No explanation has been provided for the withdrawal, but Google indicated there was no agreement between the companies.

cancel ×

196 comments

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

Samsung should be innovating not suing! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529079)

Samsung needs to stop trying to stop Apple from copying the things it innovates on, and focus on innovating every year!

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (-1, Flamebait)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41529275)

Samsung isn't worried about Apple copying. Samsung is too busy innovating.

The reason for this lawsuit, is stated in the article itself -- oh, but I forgot -- this is Slashdot and nobody reads the article. In a nutshell Samsung has to use defensive lawsuits because Apple has gone insane.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (-1, Flamebait)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41529323)

Samsung is too busy innovating... Apple has gone insane.

Well, we know whose side you are on. The Samsung as saint and Apple as devil meme is very popular on /. so you should get some nice modding.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (1, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41529557)

Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with are intelligent arguements on the issue.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529737)

Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with

is an empty comments section.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530349)

^^ brilliant
I literally LOLLED

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (4, Interesting)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 2 years ago | (#41529701)

It's hard not to be on Samsung's side in this. Apple sued first over some totally ridiculous crap.

They are both far from being saints, that's a given. Both phones suck*, but Apple definitely crossed the line of sanity here.

* They both suck *as phones*, when compared to "dumb" phones. My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530443)

My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.

They could make the battery life longer if they wanted, but it would make the phone bigger and heavier. Apple chooses the lowest battery life people need, and put whatever size battery it takes to hit that number (if you want more battery life, there are very nice cases with built in batteries). In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?

And your two pushes of a button including unlocking sounds unlikely to me. All my old phones required two pushes just to unlock, and then a long press on a button (or some similar shortcut) to call someone. With my iPhone, I don't even have to unlock it. I just hold the button down and say the person's name, and it calls them.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#41529329)

Except that Samsung had internal documents [engadget.com] that stated how they wanted to copy the iPhone. I think that's where they made the big mistake here.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41529409)

It's not like Apple has ever copied. Or like Steve Jobs proudly boasting about copying. It's the fact that someone dared to compete in what Apple wanted to be a total monopoly market. Nobody else should be able to build smartphones. That is what this is about. Not the trivia of rounded corner rectangles or bouncy scrolling. It's about Apple wanting to have a monopoly market with monopoly pricing. That doesn't work if smartphones become a commodity.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529573)

You should tell that to everybody who predicted a disaster for the iPhone (no keyboard? lame). BTW, copying is all right, if you pay for doing so, it's called licensing.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | about 2 years ago | (#41529833)

There's also a problem with that. Apple doesn't license their design patents, and will pretty much only license others when under duress.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (1)

cashxx (1882268) | about 2 years ago | (#41530013)

Wrong.....they have a license agreement with Microsoft.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (1)

cashxx (1882268) | about 2 years ago | (#41530057)

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41530763)

Apple doesn't see Windows phone as a threat to their market share.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530553)

Apple offered Samsung an $800 million dollar settlement to license the design patents. The only thing they refused to license was their trade dress.

Samsung refused to settle, and the court awarded a few hundred million dollars more than Apple was asking for (we still don't know how much the final figure will be, since judge has yet to increase the $1.05b number to include jury's "wilful infringement" ruling... and it will probably be appealed anyway).

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (3, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41530571)

Licensing, as you say. Okay. Then Apple should license one of Samsung's patents that covers, and I kid you not, how smartphone displays change when music is being played.

It's a good thing Apple and Samsung are both focusing on what is truly important. Kudos to the US Patent and Trademark office for creating a system that helps companies to focus their efforts on what is important.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529761)

Did yo read those "internal documents"? They are just expert telling design team where they went wrong with examples of good design (from Apple). It reads like "Our UI: buttons are not aligned. Good UI (yes, it's Apple's, so?): buttons are aligned. What to do: align those fucking buttons, you morons"

Saying it's "how they wanted to copy iPhone" is funny considering the advice on the slide in the article says "Differentiate icons from iPhone".

TL;DR: Take care not to steal specifics, but let's steal all common design sense from Apple!

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (3, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about 2 years ago | (#41531033)

Don't confuse them with facts and reason. The meme is that Samsung made their phones as identical as they could manage. Any differences between their phones and the iPhone was their inability to match Apples pure awesome.

Besides, no one had anything like rounded corners or icons aligned to a grid or buttons that align neatly before Apple. If they did then they didn't "put them all together" in to the "perfect package". Yes, even their supposedly awful chicklet keyboards and hockey-puck mice were superior to all other alternatives -- the perfect design that give the user the perfect experience.

All those designs that came before the iPhone that look, well, like an iPhone are all lies created by time-traveling fandroids. Apple invented all that is good. Bow your head and thank Steve Jobs for blessing you with the opportunity to buy a holy iPhone, in all it's glory. Praise be!

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41529369)

So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?

Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (2)

farble1670 (803356) | about 2 years ago | (#41530075)

So internal documents telling Samsung what to copy, and Google itself telling Samsung "you're copying too much, stop" is simply things you disregard?

copying isn't a crime in itself. apple copied the idea of the smartphone, the touchscreen, gestures, tablet computers, portable audio devices ... the list goes on.

the fact that google warned them doesn't implicate them in a crime. if i tell you not to cross the street because that man is going to rob you, and you do it anyway and get robbed, that doesn't make the robber innocent ... it just means you have poor judgement / don't listen to advice.

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (3, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 2 years ago | (#41529389)

Apple has been and always will be insane in their thinking. "Think different" really meant "do as your told"

Re:Samsung should be innovating not suing! (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41529719)

And Samsung is different how?

screw you guys... (4, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41529131)

i am going back to BB

Re:screw you guys... (1)

Alter_3d (948458) | about 2 years ago | (#41529741)

Bonzybuddy is making smartphones?

Damn, my head hurts just to think about it..

Re:screw you guys... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41530583)

i was pointing to Buckaroo Banzai 10

Re:screw you guys... (3, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41530807)

i am going back to BB

Yay! They have a customer this month!

Let me just say... (0)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 2 years ago | (#41529143)

Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng.

Re:Let me just say... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41529423)

So why did you click the link?

Re:Let me just say... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41529541)

Probably to say... Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng

Re:Let me just say... (0)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 2 years ago | (#41530079)

Probably to say... Boooooooooorrrrrrrrriiiiinnnnnng

Exactly. Let me know when there's full-on thermonuclear patent war.

Or when Tim Cook and J.K Shin engage in a Steel Cage Celebrity Deathmatch.

Samsung is obviously violating Apple's trademark (5, Funny)

The Last Gunslinger (827632) | about 2 years ago | (#41529151)

By copying Apple's well-established business process of suing their competitors for trademark and patent infringement, Samsung is clearly guilty of infringement.

(sound of recursive cranial implosion here)

god software patents suck (1)

arm1975 (2732623) | about 2 years ago | (#41529189)

like anyone's never gonna make anything that looks like or does the same shit as anyone else...

Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41529195)

Apple just uses a Qualcom chip to handle LTE.

So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?

If Samsung can sue over LTE standard essential patents mean nothing, and standards are then dead.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#41529295)

So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?

Well, just an idea, but maybe other users of said chip licensed the patent? (Something particularly likely given the amount of cross licensing that goes on.)

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (1, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41529405)

Why not actually read what happened? Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)

Samsung then throws a hissy fit and claims Apple does not have a right to use those patents and need to license them separately.

Have you not see the words "patent exhaustion" discussed at all? Sheesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#41529793)

Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)

Samsung obviously disagrees with you and is willing to go to court over it. They don't believe any licence they gave Qualcomm covers Apple. Given Samsung's usual rate is "% of final product price", I find it hard to believe any license they gave Qualcomm would cover third parties too.

As for why you'd buy Qualcomm's chips - it's because they're a pre-made component. Why do you think? A business sourcing components from a supplier doesn't assume that any product they make using said components will suddenly become licensed. Why would you?

What you've read is obviously wrong, or you've taken away a completely false impression from it. Either way, no, it's entirely possible that other users of Qualcomm's chips have negotiated patent licenses, and Apple has done its usual thing of "holding out for a better deal" (or simply ignoring patents held by rivals, in the hope it gets another dumbass Jury foreman on its side.)

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (1, Informative)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41530099)

I don't understand why people continue to make nonsense arguments that even the courts have found to be hogwash.

Samsung licenses the patents to Qualcomm. And then tells Qualcomm and Apple that *ONLY APPLE* does not have a patent license, every other customer of Qualcomm has.

You claim otherwise - what do you base your argument on?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/03/samsung-suffers-second-and-even-more.html [fosspatents.com] says:

"Furthermore, the court held that Samsung cannot assert 3G/UMTS patents against the iPhone 4S due to patent exhaustion: Apple is licensed by extension since it purchases baseband chips from Qualcomm, and Samsung's attempt to terminate its license agreement with Qualcomm as far as third-party beneficiary Apple is concerned failed because Samsung had make a commitment to ETSI, the standards body in charge of 3G, that it would grant irrevocable licenses to its 3G/UMTS-essential patents."

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530159)

So this the narrative the apple haters are using today. Seriously, you guys paint yourself in to every tinier corners and wonder why every one laughs at you. You realize you're supporting who's attempting to leverage supposedly FRAND patents. They're wrong, and you're wrong to support them.

If you buy a chip from Intel, don't you expect the right to use it to build a computer? Undoubtedly there is some third party licensed IP in every intel chip, but you don't expect that third party to come double dipping and charge you for for using that IP too?

Of course you fucking don't. Because it's a fucking bullshit money grab.

Why hate on apple because they don't want to pay up either? If you were apple, and had your weight to throw around, would you not negotiate for a better deal too? What's wrong with that?

Yes, that's apple's motive. And yes, I appreciate it. At every turn apple has taken that leverage and turned it around it to a better product for me.

They did it with the carriers. They bucked the trend of carriers raping and fucking a device so they could sell it's features back to you at a monthly rate. The original iphone was an APPLE phone and NOT and ATT phone. You as the consumer dealt with apple, and apple made the device awesome. They put the carriers in their place, as data providers and nothing else.

Apple did it with music. Slapped the labels around and made the first functional, non braindead digital music store.

The list goes on, but at every turn apple has used their influence to make a better product and nothing else.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41530519)

You are trying to make sense and logical arguments. That is going to spoil the name for all Anonymous Cowards from now onwards!! :)

Samsung cancelled Qualcomm's license (3, Informative)

tgibbs (83782) | about 2 years ago | (#41530171)

Samsung had an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm's license to Samsung's patents covered Qualcomm's customers. So Apple used Qualcomm's chips under the understanding that they were fully licensed. But apparently desperate because of Apple's many claims related to Samsung's copying, Samsung attempted to cancel Qualcomm's license as it pertains to Apple [fosspatents.com] . This is of doubtful legality, as licensing of standards-essential patents is supposed to be nondiscriminatory. But it gives Samsung some basis for countersuit, which probably helps them with investors, at least for the moment.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529889)

Why not actually read what happened? Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)

It's common for companies to get licensing from the company that owns the technology, rather than from the seller of a chip. Especially in the mobile phone business where cross-licensing between companies is standard.

Why would, say, HTC pay Qualcomm for a license from Samsung if they already have said license (or could get it at a better price themselves)? That's why chips (and other pieces of tech) often does not come with licenses to use it, and why you might need to get that from a third party. Especially in deals between big corporations like this.

I have no clue if that's what happened here. But your assumption that no-one would buy tech without buying a commercial license at the same time is false.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530823)

A lot of the time licenses are non-transferable from the vendor to its customers unless the vendor specifically negotiated with the patent holders. It'll be clearly stated in the product as such when it is covered. If the FRAND requires a percentage of the price tag, there is no way in hell that the chip vendor can know the final price of the product that its customer set at.

The only exceptions I see is that the vendor itself owns the patent e.g. Philips now NXP used to hold I2C and they grant anyone that uses their I2C chips the license, but were very aggressively suing anyone else especially in the last 3 years prior to patent's expiration date.

I mean Intel can be selling CPU to Joe, but Joe uses someone's software patents on top of the CPU, would Joe be covered by Intel?
Even if Intel were to provide a reference design that Joe copy & pasted into the design, there is always the fine prints that the documents would state the legal status.

One cannot make any assumptions at all.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41529381)

Before the iPhone, the mobile phone industry was still a patent thicket minefield. Lots of established companies had patents on various parts of what made the whole system work. Standards weren't dead then. Nobody was insane enough to launch the first nuclear weapon. Mutually assured destruction only works if all the parties are rational.

Enter Apple.

Apple thinks if you're going to start firing nuclear weapons, you might as well fire lots of them all at once.

Remember Steve Jobs say he would spend all of Apple's (eg, stockholders) money to destroy Android. Does this sound like a rational statement from a rational person? Really? Destroy Apple in order to destroy Android? Wow.

Apple's lawsuits aren't about rectangles with round corners. They're not about bouncy scrolling. They're not about any other particular details being claimed. Apple's lawsuits are about competition. Steve Jobs dreamed of having a new Bill Gates like monopoly. Pesky competitors think they should be able to compete. Apple believes that the entire mobile smartphone business is God's gift to Apple by divine right. Even established existing players who've made mobile phones for decades should get out and leave the entire market to Apple.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529627)

Enter Nokia.

FTFY. I know it's fun to blame Apple for all of this, but Nokia fired the first bullet.

Now come one shills, mod me down for stating facts!

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41530085)

Pffft, what fun is it to down mod an AC?

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41529749)

How's that tin hat of yours.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530019)

How's that tin hat of yours.

Fool! They've removed all tin foil, replacing it with only useless Aluminum Foil -- You can't make a Tin hat out of Aluminum! It's a Conspiracy I tell you! How can you not see? There's no Tin Foil anywhere anymore!

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530043)

Actually, Nokia started this in october 2009, more than two years after the first iPhone shipped, when they saw their smartphone marketshare going down fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars

So yeah, Apple has been trigger happy, but not moreso than its disgruntled competitors.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41529385)

Apple just uses a Qualcom chip to handle LTE.

So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?

If Samsung can sue over LTE standard essential patents mean nothing, and standards are then dead.

Depends on how the LTE patents are licensed. Hell, Apple's got a bunch of LTE patents, both original (e.g., nano-SIM) and bought (Nortel). Whether or not they apply to Samsung products is quetionable (they too are probably FRAND patents, and Samsung is probably compensating Apple in some way for them...).

FRAND patent lawsuits are tricky - and even the EU is investigating FRAND patent abuse by Motorola, and the like, because if this continues, it means no one can make an LTE phone, which makes the whole exercise moot. (FYI - the patents Apple sued Samsung for are NOT FRAND, while Samsung counter-sued using FRAND).

It's why there was great opposition to letting Apple's patents into the standard - remember getting your patents into standards (and thus FRAND) is a huge political ploy - with a lot of "I'll vote for you if you vote for me" kinda backroom deals. With Apple being the 800lb giant (money wise anyhow), wanting to shut Apple out is good business sense (cha-ching windfall from Apple). With Apple's patent in, and even though Apple's making the FRAND terms "free", that still counts at the who-owes-whom table when it comes to deciding how the patents are licensed.

Re:Hard to see Samsung succeeding on LTE suit (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41530419)

Well rounded corners and a flat screen means no one else can make a phone either. So if that stands, so should Samsung FRAND

Frankly, Palm should be suing the !@#$% out of all of them. Grid of icon on mobile device.

When will this Shit End? (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#41529217)

Just make it stop.

Re:When will this Shit End? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41529695)

Why? I'm rather enjoying this clash of the titans, and sort of expecting robocop to start drilling execs before too long.

Apple is a cunt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529225)

Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.

Re:Apple is a cunt (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41529393)

Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.

Apple Fanboy: I love my phone.

Android Fanboy: I hate your phone.

So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt....

Re:Apple is a cunt (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529509)

So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt....

....then the Fandriod is a cunt currently experiencing the symptoms of a yeast infection.

OK seriously. I picked Apple because Apple was "first" in the smartphone space - and when I say "smartphone" I mean "I had a busted iPod, shitty BlackBerry, and just moved to a new city and needed some form of GPS, so instead of buying 3 different devices I bought one". If Andriod was first, I likely would have gone that way.

Now, 4 years later? I've spent too much money in apps, and have too many Apple iOS devices in my household as a whole to really consider switching unless Andriod came out with some massive OMG I HAVE TO HAVE THIS!!! feature - which to date, they have not done.

That said, I have no issue with Andriod, and quite bluntly some of the Andriod devices are fucking beautiful too. My co-worker just got a S3, and that's a fucking NICE device. I don't post anti-Andriod bullshit in every Andriod article I read.

Pick the fucking device that works for you. Who really gives a fuck what someone else purchases? Do you really have that much free fucking time on your hands that you want to insult every person who doesn't pick the same as you?

No matter what...if you're a closed-minded cunt, then you fucking fail...whether at IT or life. Being evengelical about either platform makes you the same as the asshat hardcore religious fundamentalist, blindly shouting their so-called "truth", ignorant to the reality of the world.

Re:Apple is a cunt (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about 2 years ago | (#41530425)

I picked Apple because Apple was "first" in the smartphone space

You sit on a throne of lies!

Re:Apple is a cunt (2)

kenboldt (1071456) | about 2 years ago | (#41529535)

Anyone who buys Apple products is a cunt. Don't be a cunt.

Apple Fanboy: I love my phone.

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt then the Android Fanboy is Captain Obvious

FTFY, oh, and an ellipsis only has three dots but now I'm just getting picky.

Re:Apple is a cunt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529567)

"If the omission comes after the end of a sentence, the ellipsis will be placed after the period, making a total of four dots"

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least get it right.

Re:Apple is a cunt (0)

kenboldt (1071456) | about 2 years ago | (#41529925)

Do you honestly consider "So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt" to be a complete sentence? In this case, the ellipsis is indicating that the sentence would be finished with a description of the Android Fanboy. Said description is left off, and replaced with the ellipsis, leaving it to the reader to fill in using his imagination.

So, if you are going to attempt to correct a grammar Nazi, please do take care to ensure you have a fucking clue what you are talking about, OK pumpkin?

Re:Apple is a cunt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530093)

So if the Apple Fanboy is a cunt then the Android Fanboy is Captain Obvious

FTFY, oh, and an ellipsis only has three dots but now I'm just getting picky.

Sentences end with punctuation marks. How does your shoe taste?

Re:Apple is a cunt (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41529575)

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

Heh. Yeah, that was quite a rebuttal to "I hate your phone".

Actually... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41529685)

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.

Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.

Re:Actually... (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41530267)

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.

Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.

So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...

Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530423)

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.

Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.

So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...

Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.

You mean like how Andriod users root their devices & install other flavors/builds of Andriod on their devices to remove manufacturer or carrier specific crap?

Signed, the guy that hit Captain Obvious, Captain Reality & Captain Obvious' Successor in the fucking face with a brick.

Re:Actually... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41530625)

Android Fanboy: You paid how much for that phone that does half of what mine does?

iPhone user: Actually I jailbroke it, so I have a far higher quality of real apps and I can do anything you can in terms of configuration or customization.

Sorry Captain Obvious, you met your match when Captain Reality showed up.

So, you're saying that in order to get your apple phone to 'work right', you had to 'break' it.? Just askin'...

Signed, Captain Obvious' successor.

You mean like how Andriod users root their devices & install other flavors/builds of Andriod on their devices to remove manufacturer or carrier specific crap?

Signed, the guy that hit Captain Obvious, Captain Reality & Captain Obvious' Successor in the fucking face with a brick.

Have you not taken your anti-angry pills this morning? Better check on yout blood pressure, sounds like it's skyrocketing!

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530575)

Yes, you can engage in potentially risky behavior violating the TOS, EULA, and DMCA, by hacking your several-hundreds-dollar device -- an act which itself could brick said device, if Apple or your provider don't decide to brick it for you -- to obtain the same level of functionality afforded OoB to owners of devices with a price point 50% less than your device.

But, hey... you've got cool corners and fancy icons, so you're set, right?

Captain Reality? Meet Major-General Pragmatism.

Re:Apple is a cunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529545)

wow, that was really fscking hilarious. I guess you're a cunt too.

Re:Apple is a cunt (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41529655)

Welp, if my comment made you mad enough to call me a cunt, then I must have made a pretty good point. It's only a pity my phone's logo doesn't light up so you can hate me from farther away while I'm minding my own business.

Re:Apple is a cunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530177)

I thought vaginas liked penises, that that was kinda the point ...

Re:Apple is a cunt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529529)

Fuck you.

Useful (1)

Wovel (964431) | about 2 years ago | (#41529227)

He hearing is scheduled to begin shortly before the iPhone 5 becomes the "free" phone. These lawsuits are bizarre.

Apple Hypocrasy must end (Apple must Die!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529243)

http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=9362

Nuff said!

I am surprised... (0)

mschaffer (97223) | about 2 years ago | (#41529257)

I am surprised that some company (I have Apple in mind) isn't trying to sue everyone for the process of suing people for copying stuff that they, themselves, have copied.
I just think it's the logical next step.

Doesn't Apple own LTE patents as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529269)

Perhaps the suit should be amended to include this cross complaint? Only seems fair.

And why is Apple being sued? They don't make LTE circuitry. They only buy it from other manufacturers. Shouldn't Samsung being suing THEM instead?

YA type of "cold war" (4, Insightful)

GReaToaK_2000 (217386) | about 2 years ago | (#41529445)

Only now it's mutually assured destruction via patent law.

The only winners are lawyers, judges and monopolies.

The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.

I knew I should have studied to be lawyer.

Sigh.

Re:YA type of "cold war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529609)

Only now it's mutually assured destruction via patent law.

The only winners are lawyers, judges and monopolies.

The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.

I knew I should have studied to be lawyer.

Sigh.

Don't forget Microsoft. In the midst of all this suing, they look to be stable. They should have a pretty decent Win8 phone by the time this all shakes out and those consumers who don't go for high drama will just buy that because it's less of a hassle.

Re:YA type of "cold war" (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41529813)

Which will be when?

Re:YA type of "cold war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530243)

MS has been one of the main patent aggressors here. It's only a matter of time before they're smacked down as well.

Re:YA type of "cold war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529779)

It's not about patents and rights and who is correct or not. It is about the broken court system (at least here in the States) that allows 12 people (or whatever other number for other types of suits) to make a decision based on things they could never possibly understand in regards to those patents. There isn't a single person on those juries who understands it well enough, let alone explain it to the other people, to make an informed decision. It's just about how bad you can make your opponent look to them. In other, it is just like electing politicians. No one cares about facts, they just want the person who they can shoehorn into their own distorted, small-picture mindset.

Re:YA type of "cold war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530307)

The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.

It's not Apple's fault the plastic Android turd you bought in January 2012 can't run ICS.

Re:YA type of "cold war" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530683)

My Plastic android that i bought 18months ago runs ICS and JB without issue. I'm not sure where you get your information.

Stop it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529447)

Surely Apple and Samsung aren't passing the cost of all this litigation to their customers.

Re:Stop it (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#41529979)

No buddy, customers are driving up phone costs.

There is no reason for today's cellphones to cost more than many desktop/laptop computers. What is happening is that customers have created a market of high demand in which they are willing to pay more for these products out of perceived value than actual value. Also consider how highly subsidized phones are by cell companies to lock you into their excessively priced multi-year contracts and you realize that the market prices are completely driven by customers wants.

There is not a single customer out their that is getting screwed over by all these lawsuits. If a new generation of iPhone or Galaxy costs more than the last generation because of the cost of the lawsuits and settlements, and there are still millions of iTwits or gTwits lining up to buy them, then that is what drives up the cost of cellphones. Nobody forces you to buy something for more money then its worth, as a consumer you have complete control of where you money goes. Just that most people absolutely believe they need an upgraded iPhone or Galaxy when in reality there is actually very little differences between generations other than a new marketing spin. If Apple knows they can make an iPhone in a different case and have millions of people dump their 6 month old phone and re-buy the same thing then they are going to take full advantage of those people. That is capitalism 101 in a nutshell. Demand > Supply, $ Supply > $ Value.

Finally consider that Apple and Samsung make like 2x more profit than the cost to actually produce the device, they have more than a little slush room to absorb high legal costs.

The market bares what the market can bare, as long as people are willing to spend more for a cellphone then companies are going to charge whatever the hell they want for a phone. When people stop upgrading every 6 months and companies CAN'T cell millions of a product on its release weekend then you will see prices match closer to actual value. Just look at how the cost of PC's have bottomed out! Nobody wants them anymore and companies can't give them away.

Consumers can be smarter by buying last generation phones when they are being liquidated by these companies, or just NOT buying phones on day one.

evil samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529483)

Samsung is korean. has to be evil

Re:evil samsung (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530365)

Judge Koh is Korean too. Hmmmmm *puts on tin foil hat*

Re:evil samsung (1)

ballpoint (192660) | about 2 years ago | (#41530883)

Oh, I thought she was German. My mistake, that would have been Judge Kuh.

ping-pong (0)

webanish (1045264) | about 2 years ago | (#41529489)

(wait, does china have a patent on *that*?)

Will it never end? (2)

CimmerianX (2478270) | about 2 years ago | (#41529531)

We need some brave and fatalistic politicians to finally revamp the entire patent system. When someone was able to patent a PB&J with the crusts cut off, for me, that's when this whole thing jumped the shark.

Apologies to Jimmy Webb. (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 2 years ago | (#41529543)

I sue you, you sue me
We both sue too easily, too easily
To let us grow

Re:Apologies to Lionel Richie (1)

fran6gagne (1467469) | about 2 years ago | (#41529757)

Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
That’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.

I had a dream, I had an awesome dream.
People in the park,
Playin' games in the dark.
And what they played was a masquerade,
From behind the walls of doubt,
A voice was crying out.

Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
That’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.

As we go down life’s lonesome highway,
Seems the hardest thing to do,
Is to find a friend or two.
That helping hand, someone who understands.
You’ve got someone there to sue, "I’ll show you."

Ooo-oooo.
Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
Aw, that’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.

(So you think you know the answer, oh, no.)
Well, the whole world’s got you dancin'.
(That’s right, I’m telling you.)
(It’s time to start believin', oh, yes,)
(Believe in who you are,
(You are a shining star.)

Sue you, sue me, sue it for always,
Aw, that’s the way it should be.
Sue you, sue me, sue it together, naturally.
Sue it together, naturally.

Re:Apologies to Lionel Richie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530169)

I'd rather eat suet pudding.

Chicken, egg. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529625)

This whole thing reminds me of Whale Wars.

I have never.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41529665)

I have an iPhone and it will be my last. But this is something I realized the other day while talking about buying the I5.

Everytime someone says 'I am buying the iPhone 5 (no not fanboys on the internet) and I ask why the answer is:

This ones home button is broken. The batter sucks on this one. This one is too slow. I already purchased all my apps. The screen cracked. I already have a bunch of expensive accessories.

Never once, in person has someone said 'This is the best phone I have ever owned and I love it, so the next one must be better.

Im not saying, Im just saying.

Re:I have never.. (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41529827)

Because no Droid owner ever said that *eye roll*

Re:I have never.. (2)

fran6gagne (1467469) | about 2 years ago | (#41530541)

Sure they say that, and then they can go to the store and buy a better android phone from a different manufacturer and reuse all their accessories, get back their purchased apps, etc...

If its legit, go for it (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#41529811)

If Samsung's claims are legit then they should pursue this as fully as possible.

Apple has created a hostile market that inhibits innovation by suing anybody with anything that resembles Apple's IP. While Samsung obviously lifted some design cues from iPhone, overall I don't think anything Samsung has done would make an Apple iPhone user switch over to a Samsung Android phone, so I thought the Apple lawsuit was petty and vindictive. Apple is doing a better job of moving people to Android then Samsung is capable of. Apple has to realize that there are at least 3 to 1 people that hate Apple and everything they do which means that Android will ALWAYS be a larger platform than Apple, just like Windows was always a larger platform than Mac. Apple never cared when Microsoft lifted UI designs, so why should they care when Samsung does the same thing.

So, if Samsung has valid claims then Apple should get a taste of their own medicine. Banning iPhone 5 sales, even for a few days during the holiday season would be a big blow to Apple, and if Samsung's claims are found justified and Apple has also infringed on other people's patents, then maybe people will wake up and see Apple for what they are.

However I have the distinct feeling that Samsung's claims are thin and flimsy and more out of spite and pettiness. I fully support legal action where it's justified, but the arguments between two petulant parties does nobody any good.

Re:If its legit, go for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41530377)

Apple never cared when Microsoft lifted UI designs, so why should they care when Samsung does the same thing.

1. Because Microsoft is U.S.-based, and can more easily lobby (a.k.a. bribe) the system.

My Galaxy Tab 10.1 was smiling this morning (2)

djl4570 (801529) | about 2 years ago | (#41530089)

I wonder how this patent swarm compares to the sewing machine patent swarm. Probably worse because the sewing machine compaines never thought about patenting things like rounded corners.

Opera/9.80 (Android 3.2; Linux; Opera Tablet/ADR-1207201819; U; en) Presto/2.10.254 Version/12.00

FYI - Google sails past Microsoft (0)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41530109)

Daily News, Oct. 2: Google sailed past Microsoft on Monday to become the world's second biiggest technology company.

The milestone reflects both the rise of internet advertising and search - an area wwhere the two giants compete - and the decline of the PC industry, which Microsoft dominates.

Google's market capitalization hit $249.9 billion at the close, just edging out Microsoft's tally of $247.2 billion. Both are still behind Apple, which comes in at a weighty $618.1 billion. Google's search engine holds about 66% of the search market, far exceeding Microsoft's 16% share, according to comscore.

Elizabeth Lazarowitz, with News Wire Services.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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