dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4160
share rss forum feed


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6
reply to Spensergig

Re: Samsung - Why This Case Matter

Dang. I was going to claim 192.168.1.106.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to Spensergig
said by Spensergig:

I suspect his "IP" referred to "Intellectual Property".

Yep. Sorry for non-clarity. Having done large corporate R&D for decades, the patent game is one of either staking out a position, or generating defensive patents, or patenting around other patents and then horse trading agreements to avoid mutual assured destruction.

We cannot allow a patent gap.

Intellectual Property - the ICBM of knowledge.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android: Galaxy Nexus in Apple v. Samsung II by pj:

While the case is now moving into the main tent of Apple's anti-Android circus, the Samsung devices are flying off the shelves in America. People want them. But Apple doesn't want us to want them, or if we already do want them, they don't want us to be able to find them to buy them. And if we can find them, because Samsung comes up with workarounds, it wants to be sure Samsung's devices are uglier than Apple's and can't do as much. Noble values, indeed.

Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors.

P.S. That's not what courts are supposed to be for. And companies could try innovation instead of litigation.

Apple wants us all to buy only Apple products (or any nonAndroid alternative), or that's what I get from all this. So if we keep buying Android products, Apple's strategy is apparently to make it such a dangerous hassle to sell Android that the vendors will either give up and go back to whatever else they were doing before Android came along -- explaining why Microsoft's reaction to the bizarre Apple verdict in Apple v. Samsung I was to crow that the verdict was "good for Windows phone" -- or have to implement so many workarounds, their products are hideous to look at and can't do the typical things customers expect. That seems to be how Samsung views all this litigation too, as Apple trying to limit consumer choice.

This other case between Apple and Samsung isn't about rectangles with rounded corners or double rows of icons with graphics of phone receivers or flowers. Same court, same judges, same parties, but different Apple patents. These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection.” In other words, four toxic software patents. Yes, Apple claims to own that functionality as its very own, because it's such a great innovator. Who else could think up text correction? I mean, come on. They are Geniuses.

I jest. I've taken the time to read up on the case a bit, and I'd like to show you the dirty tricks Google, a nonparty involved in the case due to Apple's discovery demands, said back in April Apple was doing -- creating what Google called a "manufactured controversy". It'll give you some insight into this thermonuclear war Apple is waging...

By the way, if you want to understand just how toxic design patents are, let me show you something...



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
quote:
Yes, Apple claims to own that functionality as its very own, because it's such a great innovator.
No, it claims to have a patent on those things. Which it is defending in court. Which is how patents work. Even if you don't like them.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by JohnInSJ:

No, it claims to have a patent on those things.

Particularly if one chooses to ignore some prior art and infringement suits against it.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by FF4m3 :

said by JohnInSJ:

No, it claims to have a patent on those things.

Particularly if one chooses to ignore some prior art and infringement suits against it.

Don't blame the player This is the world Apple lives in. They play the broken game to the best of their abilities. Samsung can play the game too, or be at a disadvantage.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by JohnInSJ:

Don't blame the player

Players are responsible for their actions.

As PJ said, "companies could try innovation instead of litigation."


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by FF4m3 :

said by JohnInSJ:

Don't blame the player

Players are responsible for their actions.

As PJ said, "companies could try innovation instead of litigation."

Apple agrees
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
said by JohnInSJ:

said by FF4m3 :

said by JohnInSJ:

Don't blame the player

Players are responsible for their actions.

As PJ said, "companies could try innovation instead of litigation."

Apple agrees

As spokesperson for Apple you may soon be replaced by someone from Interval Licensing.

Allen v. World - Interval Moves to Incorporate Mountain Lion:

In its latest action, Interval Licensing has moved for leave to amend its supplemental infringement contentions to include Apple's OS X Mountain Lion operating system. (275 [PDF; Text]) If successful with this motion (and for the record, Apple opposes it), Interval will have substantially raised the stakes in this action.

With or without this amendment, this case exemplifies the lunacy of the patent system with respect to software.

Everything Apple just (tentatively) won against Samsung they could be forced to disgorge to Interval.


So who are the winners in all of this?

It certainly will not be any company that actually makes something.

The only winners will be those patent holders who make nothing (because they are immune to infringement counterclaims) and the members of the patent and litigation bar.

So, please, someone tell us again about how patents are important to innovation (and improving our economy) when it comes to software.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by FF4m3 :

As spokesperson for Apple you may soon be replaced by someone from Interval Licensing.

Allen v. World - Interval Moves to Incorporate Mountain Lion:

Yep. I don't speak for Apple, I just live in the reality that includes patents. In that reality, innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FF4m3
IMO one shift in patent law I think should be made is the outright and complete ban of patent holding firms. Either you are a company with a product or an individual inventor. The law would also be retroactive and all patents not held by producers or individuals would be nullified and become public domain.

Patents are meant to protect inventors, no pad the wallets of people who do not even make a single product or have not invented a single thing on their own.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

Innovation is always expressed by better technological solution accepted by society.

...innovation refers to transformation, diffusion and ultimately change.

In society, innovation aids in comfort, convenience, and efficiency in everyday life.

In business and economics, innovation is the catalyst to growth.

In the organizational context, innovation may be linked to positive changes in efficiency, productivity, quality, competitiveness, market share, and others.

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones.

Apple's Patent Wars; Is Tim Cook Fighting the Wrong Battles Against Samsung? by Timothy Kelly - September 4 2012:

Apple and Samsung are arguably the most dysfunctional, yet symbiotic partners in all of technology. Samsung is a major component supplier to Apple, including memory and processing chips and flat-screen technology; and without Samsung, Apple would not be able to deliver the Iphone and Ipad products.

Despite the nasty patent battles that continue to rage between the two tech giants, Samsung has billions at stake by supplying components to Apple. So while the two shred each other in public and in the courts the relationship will not soon be dissolving.

Despite the early victory, Samsung would seem to be better suited for a protracted battle than Apple, as it begins to roll-out newer innovations in its line of smart phones and tablets. According to some analysts, Samsung was the leading seller of smart phones in the US last month for the first time since Apple introduced the IPhone 4s last October.

Apple has been using arcane US patent laws (while also buying patents from non-related companies) in an effort to block sales of many Samsung smart phone and tablet devices. Some of the Samsung products slowly making their way to US consumers are being received with critical acclaim and high rates of consumer acceptance. It is only a matter of time until Samsung figures out how to navigate the patent minefield thrown down by what is beginning to look like a desperate Apple.

Apple's new marketing strategy (right or wrong) in blocking competitive technology appears to be a loser in the court of public opinion. More and more consumers are expressing distain for the suppression of new offerings from companies such as Samsung and see Apple now looking like it is desperate to hold market share through litigation instead of innovation.

Apple has a lot to lose if it becomes too distracted by its defensive strategies.

CEO Tim Cook is in danger of being seen as a corporate bureaucrat rather than a technology innovator.

For the moment, Cook appears to be taking the bait in pursuing the litigation path, giving Samsung a huge opening to steal the magic from Apple.



Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

Don't blame the player This is the world Apple lives in.

Wait a minute, this is the world Apple created. Is it they that started down this path of patent war. Time will tell if that was a wise move.

Apple is the new SCO.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Lovely.

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

Innovation is always expressed by better technological solution accepted by society.

...innovation refers to transformation, diffusion and ultimately change.

In society, innovation aids in comfort, convenience, and efficiency in everyday life.

In business and economics, innovation is the catalyst to growth.

In the organizational context, innovation may be linked to positive changes in efficiency, productivity, quality, competitiveness, market share, and others.

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones.

Apple's Patent Wars; Is Tim Cook Fighting the Wrong Battles Against Samsung? by Timothy Kelly - September 4 2012:

Apple and Samsung are arguably the most dysfunctional, yet symbiotic partners in all of technology. Samsung is a major component supplier to Apple, including memory and processing chips and flat-screen technology; and without Samsung, Apple would not be able to deliver the Iphone and Ipad products.

Despite the nasty patent battles that continue to rage between the two tech giants, Samsung has billions at stake by supplying components to Apple. So while the two shred each other in public and in the courts the relationship will not soon be dissolving.

Despite the early victory, Samsung would seem to be better suited for a protracted battle than Apple, as it begins to roll-out newer innovations in its line of smart phones and tablets. According to some analysts, Samsung was the leading seller of smart phones in the US last month for the first time since Apple introduced the IPhone 4s last October.

Apple has been using arcane US patent laws (while also buying patents from non-related companies) in an effort to block sales of many Samsung smart phone and tablet devices. Some of the Samsung products slowly making their way to US consumers are being received with critical acclaim and high rates of consumer acceptance. It is only a matter of time until Samsung figures out how to navigate the patent minefield thrown down by what is beginning to look like a desperate Apple.

Apple's new marketing strategy (right or wrong) in blocking competitive technology appears to be a loser in the court of public opinion. More and more consumers are expressing distain for the suppression of new offerings from companies such as Samsung and see Apple now looking like it is desperate to hold market share through litigation instead of innovation.

Apple has a lot to lose if it becomes too distracted by its defensive strategies.

CEO Tim Cook is in danger of being seen as a corporate bureaucrat rather than a technology innovator.

For the moment, Cook appears to be taking the bait in pursuing the litigation path, giving Samsung a huge opening to steal the magic from Apple.



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
said by JohnInSJ:

innovation includes filing patents, and if granted, using them in lawsuits

Patent win could be 'corrosive' to Apple's future:

Gartner Inc. group vice-president Mark McDonald says the patent win could breed complacency and stifle innovation.

Winning a patent lawsuit can be stifling to innovation, he writes, and foster complacency. The Samsung lawsuit was an extension of co-founder Steve Jobs "thermonuclear" war on Android; mission accomplished, what does Apple do?

Last week’s patent ruling has the potential to be more corrosive and coercive to Apple’s future than any financial success.

Patent victory in hand, a company can bully the competition out of the marketplace with court orders, or license to the technology to other players:

If Apple believes that it is the best because it out-innovates, out-performs and out-operates its competitors, then it should continue to do so by licensing its technology to others at a very reasonable rate. It could take the billion dollars in the award create some social good as they already admit they have enough cash. Those are actions that would prove that the suits were not about the money and more about being proven right in the marketplace.

The patent wars and patent trolls are an unfortunate outcome of a system where the motivation to litigate is as strong as the motivation to invent.

The Wall Street Journal warned as much in their analysis on Saturday of the award: “That means that Apple could find it easier to defend its market position and lofty profit margins, while consumers may see a bit less choice and higher prices — as fewer competitors court buyers with me-too models and pass along costs of damage awarded in the price of their products.”

Patents are important, valuable and lead to innovation. They are part of the reason why we have technology and its benefits. But their role is not just to grant a license to exploit an invention in the market; they also encourage others to invest time, sweat, capital and knowledge in new ideas.

The patent wars will not go away, but they also do not have to define the future of technology. That is left to those who win the war, as we know that history is more often written by them, but not always.

This is not the last patent fight. Apple will have to arm and fight the patent wars just like Google, Microsoft and others. This appears to be an alternative way of winning in this industry via IP rather than winning in the market, winning in customer value, etc.

Judge Koh should vacate the Apple-Samsung verdict:

Jurisprudence demands that US District Judge Lucy Koh right a terrible miscarriage of justice occurring in her courtroom.

The Apple-Samsung patent dispute is nothing but a mock trial. The jury ignored key instructions, failed to complete a crucial checklist, made egregious errors on the final verdict form and reached a verdict after 21 hours of deliberations.

The foreman misunderstood one of the concepts fundamental to the case -- prior art -- leading the jury astray.

Then there is Judge Koh, who prevented Samsung from presenting key evidence or witnesses that could have made its defense and case against Apple more credible.

Judge Koh let this travesty occur on her watch. She should be ashamed and do what this malfeasance demands: Set aside the verdict.

[Jury foreman Vel Hogan] claims that initially the jury was divided and confused about prior art, which is crucial to determining a patent's validity. Samsung presented a defense largely about prior art that if accepted could invalidate most, if not all, of the disputed Apple patents.

He goes on to explain his interpretation of prior art, which even as a layperson (and someone who has covered plenty of tech legal cases) makes absolutely no sense at all. Hogan believes that because Apple or Samsung software couldn't run on either's processor, there could be no prior art.

"This is an odd statement considering that the test for obviousness is not whether features may be bodily incorporated into a prior art structure, but rather, what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art", patent attorney Scott McKeown says.

The impact of Hogan's misunderstanding cannot be understated.

Fellow juror Manuel Ilagan tells CNET's Greg Sandoval about the foreman: "He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art". Hogan made believers out of the other jurors, quite possibly misleading their interpretation of every patent.

Perhaps the verdict would have been different with someone of sufficient technical background or understanding of patents. Regardless, Hogan acknowledges, however tacitly, his influence over the jury.

If only the problems stopped there. Perhaps Samsung should have hired better lawyers.

Apple's courtroom victory is largely built on misinformation:

The limited story Judge Koh allowed Samsung to present to the jury

Hogan's misunderstanding of prior art and his conveying the concept to fellow jurors

Ongoing misreporting, either because of Apple bias, poor research or legal misunderstandings
Jones captures my sentiments about the case and what it really means:

Samsung devices are flying off the shelves in America. People want them. But Apple doesn't want us to want them, or if we already do want them, they don't want us to be able to find them to buy them. And if we can find them, because Samsung comes up with workarounds, it wants to be sure Samsung's devices are uglier than Apple's and can't do as much. Noble values, indeed.

Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors.

P.S. That's not what courts are supposed to be for. And companies could try innovation instead of litigation.

Judge Koh, you allowed this travesty to occur and empowered Apple to usurp fundamental principals behind patents -- that government grants a limited monopoly in exchange for full public disclosure that allows other parties to build even better products, spurring innovation, increasing competition and improving consumer choice. Instead, your careless courtroom supervision gave Apple the launch codes to set off Steve Jobs' thermonuclear war against iPhone's Android competitors. Shame on you.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to FF4m3
Wow, one sentence rates three half page cut and paste replies.

If Apple wishes to continue to fund innovation, then clearly it is in their best interest to defend against their inventions (as expressed in products) from being copied and have those copies sold at a lower price.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
Apple hoards LTE patents to deflect Samsung attack:

Possible defensive move to stop Samsung marching iPhone 5 to court

Apple has gone from holding zero LTE patents last year to having 318 filed away today. That's around five per cent of the world’s total, today, the Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) told local news site The Chosun Ilbo.

Cupertino apparently developed just 44 of those patents itself while the rest were bought from once-proud Nortel as it was broken up.

The Rockstar Bidco consortium which Apple joined with EMC, Microsoft and others to bid for further Nortel patents owns a further 116 LTE patents, effectively bumping Apple’s number up in excess of 400.

By comparison, Samsung has the largest share of the patents on the planet with 819 (12.7 per cent), while US patent firm InterDigital is second with 780 (12.1 per cent).

Samsung confirmed it would “immediately sue” Apple if the Californian phone-maker releases an LTE device.

And so it goes...


cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

Wow, one sentence rates three half page cut and paste replies.

If Apple wishes to continue to fund innovation, then clearly it is in their best interest to defend against their inventions (as expressed in products) from being copied and have those copies sold at a lower price.

Apple and innovation does not belong in the same sentence. They stole every ones ideas. I really hope they have stepped on the wrong toes here. Their only piss poor scared that android powered devices are much better.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
Yeah, and everyone "stole" the idea of a telephone from Alexander Graham Bell.

"Stolen idea" is a silly phrase, given that the entire history of human technology involves people having new ideas based on their knowledge of existing ideas, starting with whacking one rock against another rock.

But if you're going to go down the stole-an-idea route, that's a curious angle when talking about iPhone and Android. I guess those iPhone guys copied Android phones, huh?

(I have no particular axe to grind here: I happen to have an iPhone, prefer it immensely to a prior BlackBerry device, have no hands-on Android experience).


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by dave:

the entire history of human technology involves people having new ideas based on their knowledge of existing ideas

Yup.
said by dave:

everyone "stole" the idea of a telephone from Alexander Graham Bell

Not so.

Invention of the telephone:

Bell has been widely recognized as the "inventor" of the telephone outside of Italy, where Meucci was championed as its inventor.

An early voice communicating device was invented around 1854 by Antonio Meucci, who called it a telettrofono. In 1871 Meucci filed a caveat at the US Patent Office.

In the United States, there are numerous reflections of Bell as a North American icon for inventing the telephone, and the matter was for a long time non-controversial. In June 2002, however, the United States House of Representatives passed a symbolic bill recognizing the contributions of Antonio Meucci "in the invention of the telephone" (not "for the invention of the telephone"), throwing the matter into some controversy. Ten days later the Canadian parliament countered with a symbolic motion conferring official recognition for the invention of the telephone to Bell.

Champions of Meucci, Manzetti, and Gray have each offered fairly precise tales of a contrivance whereby Bell actively stole the invention of the telephone from their specific inventor.

Meucci was recognized for his pioneering work on the telephone by the United States House of Representatives in 2002. The resolution stated that "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell." No such patent could have issued to Bell in March 1876. If Meucci had renewed his caveat, he would have been given an opportunity to prove to the examiner that the device described in his caveat was the electromagnetic telephone described in Bell's patent application.

Elisha Gray, of Highland Park, Illinois (near Chicago) also devised a tone telegraph of this kind about the same time as La Cour. In Gray's tone telegraph, several vibrating steel reeds tuned to different frequencies interrupted the current, which at the other end of the line passed through electromagnets and vibrated matching tuned steel reeds near the electromagnet poles.

On 14 February 1876 at the US Patent Office, Gray's lawyer filed a patent caveat for a telephone on the very same day that Bell's lawyer filed Bell's patent application for a telephone. The water transmitter described in Gray's caveat was strikingly similar to the experimental telephone transmitter tested by Bell on March 10, 1876, a fact which raised questions about whether Bell (who knew of Gray) was inspired by Gray's design or vice versa. Although Bell did not use Gray's water transmitter in later telephones, evidence suggests that Bell's lawyers may have obtained an unfair advantage over Gray.

Gray's caveat was taken to the Patent Office in the morning of 14 February 1876 shortly after the Patent Office opened and remained near the bottom of the in-basket until that afternoon. Bell's application was filed shortly before noon on 14 February by Bell's lawyer who requested that the filing fee be entered immediately onto the cash receipts blotter and Bell's application was taken to the Examiner immediately. Late in the afternoon, Gray's caveat was entered on the cash blotter and was not taken to the Examiner until the following day. The fact that Bell's filing fee was recorded earlier than Gray's led to the myth that Bell had arrived at the Patent Office earlier. Bell was in Boston on 14 February and did not know this happened until later. Gray later abandoned his caveat and did not contest Bell's priority. That opened the door to Bell being granted US patent 174465 for the telephone on 7 March 1876.

Interesting.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FF4m3
I think this is why some are questioning if the iPhone5 will be a major innovation. Some are already thinking Apple has become complacent in the phone market thinking that their brand and patent lawsuits will keep competition out of the way.

Like I say, the judges have zero right to prevent consumers from buying Samsung equipment. Only hardware design patents should be allowed when talking import injunctions.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by Kearnstd:

Some are already thinking Apple has become complacent in the phone market thinking that their brand and patent lawsuits will keep competition out of the way.

Exactly.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
Apple Cuts Orders From Samsung for iPhone Chips - September 7, 2012:

Apple has reduced its orders for memory chips for its new iPhone from its main supplier and competitor, Samsung Electronics, a person with direct knowledge of the matter said Friday.

The person, who declined to be identified because the order negotiations were confidential, denied that the reduced orders from Apple had been prompted by a souring relationship between the two companies, which are locked in a global patent dispute.

Apple has been cutting back its orders from Samsung as it has sought to diversify its memory chip supply lines, although Samsung remains on the list of initial suppliers for the new iPhone, the person said.

Samsung declined to comment, and Apple representatives were not immediately available to comment.

Apple frequently faces a supply crunch when it rolls out a new product because the product often creates a consumer stampede that drives demand far in excess of supply and production capability.

Still, Samsung remains the sole producer of Apple-designed micro chips that power the iPhone and iPad, making the relationship too important for either party to put at risk.

Apple might face a difficult task in seeking to invalidate patents held by HTC of Taiwan for data transmission in wireless devices, a U.S. trade judge said at a trial that could lead to import bans on the newest iPad and the next version of the iPhone, Bloomberg News reported from Washington.

HTC accuses Apple of infringing two patents it owns. HTC said the patented methods are critical to the 4G technology known as LTE, or long-term evolution, which allows faster downloads.

A victory could let HTC seek an import ban against the latest iPad and even the newest iPhone, if it uses LTE when it is unveiled as early as next week. That could give the Taiwanese handset maker leverage to force a settlement with Apple, which has made its own patent-infringement claims against HTC.

From Reuters:

The report said Apple instead picked Japan's Toshiba Corp (6502.T), Elpida Memory ELPDK.PK and Korea's SK Hynix (000660.KS) to supply DRAM and NAND chips.



No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6

1 recommendation


The person, who declined to be identified because the order negotiations were confidential, ...



OT, but that line from the article sticks in my throat.

"I can't be trusted with company confidential information, but you should believe me because I wouldn't lie."

More to the topic, an manufacturer which puts too many eggs in one basket is taking unnecessary risks. Whether the suits (lawsuits, but the other definition fits here as well) are acting as a catalyst or not, it makes sense for Apple to diversify its supply chain.

As for the topic title, why this case matters in the context of a *nix forum is becoming increasingly less clear.

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :
The person, who declined to be identified because the order negotiations were confidential, denied that the reduced orders from Apple had been prompted by a souring relationship between the two companies, which are locked in a global patent dispute.
Yeaaahhhhhhhh........righhhhhhtttt....

And I've got the numbers for the Powerball too! That $100M is MINE!

NOT!

So fruitco did what Samsung should do... notice its not on the processor! Or at least not yet...

Cut them off Samsung! Take the earnings hit and MOVE ON! Send them packing.. They might find DRAM/NAND supplies but the processor will be a tougher one to find in quality AND QUANTITY.

Better devices will always win... of course you have to [be able to] sell them!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to No_Strings
said by No_Strings:

As for the topic title, why this case matters in the context of a *nix forum is becoming increasingly less clear.

Here's a reminder -

said by pj :

This case represents to me just the next proprietary move to paint FOSS into a corner.

The intention is to tie it up with royalties and IP law restrictions that limit what it can offer so that it dies there in that corner. Steve Jobs said so, that he intended to kill Android.

And here's Android's (Linux/FOSS) threat to Apple...

Android Marketshare Up Against iPhone - 08/08/2012:

Got an iPhone? You're in the minority.

There were four Android phones for every iPhone shipped in the second quarter, research firm IDC said Wednesday. That's up from a ratio of 2.5 to 1 in the same period last year.

The success of Samsung's Android phones helped Google's operating system extend its dominance in the smartphone market.

Samsung Electronics Co. and other phone makers shipped nearly 105 million Android smartphones in the April-June quarter, giving Android 68 percent of the worldwide market, up from 47 percent last year.

The gains came largely at the expense of BlackBerry phones made by Research in Motion Ltd. and Symbian phones made largely by Nokia Corp. Each saw its market share drop below 5 percent. Nokia is now making phones that use Microsoft Corp.'s Windows system.

The market share for Apple Inc.'s iPhone, powered by its iOS software, fell slightly to 17 percent, from 19 percent. But the company shipped more iPhones than a year ago. Apple is the No. 2 smartphone maker, behind Samsung, and is likely to get a boost when it releases its new iPhone model as expected this fall.

Apple shook up the smartphone market when it released its first iPhone in 2007. It showed that phones can do much more than make calls and send email.

But in recent years, Google has mounted a serious challenge with Android and benefits from having several manufacturers as partners, including Samsung, HTC Corp. and Motorola Mobility, which Google ended up buying this year.

According to IDC, Samsung accounted for 44 percent of all Android phones in the second quarter and shipped more Android phones than the next seven Android phone makers combined.

IDC estimates that Samsung shipped 50.2 million smartphones in the quarter, though that includes a few million phones running the Bada system based on Linux. Apple shipped 26 million iPhones.

"The mobile OS market is now unquestionably a two-horse race due to the dominance of Android and iOS," Kevin Restivo, a senior research analyst at IDC, said in a statement.

The share of Windows phone grew to 3.5 percent, from 2.3 percent, in the latest quarter, largely because of its adoption by Nokia. Windows was the fifth-largest phone operating system but was gaining on No. 3 BlackBerry and No. 4 Symbian.

... so if you're losing market share it's time to throw an IP litigation party.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6
Groklaw mattered when SCO was going after Linux. Less so now, and I think the connection to OSS in all of this is tangential at best.

Of all possible explanations, the simplest is usually the right one and in this case, Apple is defending what they believe is theirs as is Samsung. They have always done this. The beef many have about US Patent law is also a tenuous connection to all things *nix.

Jobs wanting to put a competitor out of business should not be a surprise. That's how business works - whether you're Red Hat or Microsoft or Oracle or Samsung or Apple.

I think there are two groups who care about this case - those who are affected by the ruling(s) such as business leaders and lawyers and people with an irrational hate for Apple and who subscribe to the "any enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Anti-Apple *nix or OSS.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
Agree pretty much with your assessment, except that Groklaw is still very relevant and influential for those of us carefully following its research, including as an accurate source for journalists and those in the legal profession.

In addition, history, coupled with current business stats indicate that FOSS' expanded use by OEMs in mobile and other devices creates market, cost and open-platform adaptability threats to proprietary systems are seemingly not easily countered.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6
said by FF4m3 :

Agree pretty much with your assessment, except that Groklaw is still very relevant and influential for those of us carefully following its research, including as an accurate source for journalists and those in the legal profession.

I'd suggest like-minded folks - and Groklaw, for that matter - would be better served visiting that site versus reading selective cut & pastes here.

said by FF4m3 :

In addition, history, coupled with current business stats indicate that FOSS' expanded use by OEMs in mobile and other devices creates market, cost and open-platform adaptability threats to proprietary systems are seemingly not easily countered.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm an advocate for Open Source code and it's nice to see it being used in places like my media player, NAS devices I'm familiar with, routers and phones.

If Apple were to contend that its proprietary code made it into the Linux kernel, that would be ATU news. "Your phone looks too much like my phone" seems more appropriate for other venues.


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:

Cut them off Samsung! Take the earnings hit and MOVE ON!

That would be sweet.