or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Australian Apple lawsuit halts sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Apple lawsuit halts sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Well that was my whole point. Monopolies don't use courts to snuff out competition so the accusation that this is "monopolistic tactics" is silly and misinformed.

It's complicated - if you're interested there is a weighty DoJ paper on IP and anti-trust

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovatio...ionrpt0704.pdf
post #122 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

It's complicated - if you're interested there is a weighty DoJ paper on IP and anti-trust

http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovatio...ionrpt0704.pdf

Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #123 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Thanks for the link. At work so no time to read thoroughly, however, this still would not apply to this case. Trade dress wouldn't fall under that. Also, if Apple ever got to that kind of power as far as monopoly goes, wouldn't the patents involved (let's say the Nortel LTE patents as an example) be considered RAND?

Maybe even beyond RAND, MS has been required to make the patents it bought from Novell available under Linux friendly licenses. It seems that law is still being made in this area, but at any rate the DoJ and presumably the EU competition directorate are starting to look more seriously at IP as it pertains to competition.

There's really no sane way that it applies to Apple today of course.
post #124 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

As an Aussie I am disgusted by this and I would not be the only one...

Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is Don't worry mate, our courts will sort it out and put the rest of the world on the right path
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Yes, they have that choice. But they can't buy the product which is arguably the next best after the iPad 2.

Actually, in Australia the Galaxy Tab is a piece of rubbish. There are other Android tablets that are far better than it.
post #126 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupidhero View Post

I can't see why apple wouldn't use this marketing strategy, given that they have an image which would benefit quite a lot from such marketing. It's one of the best ways to bind costumers to your company.

1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).

2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.

3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.

4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.

You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?
post #127 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).

They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.

Product Placement comes more under the heading of marketing or advertising than PR, I would argue. It's about showing the product rather than sending a message, and yes Apple do a LOT of product placement in TV shows and movies.

So do Dell, and I've seen the odd WP7 phone on 'Castle'.

Sometimes though it seems like they refused to pay. There's a whole part of the movie 'Runaway Jury' which involves evidence stored on a 1-G iPod that the characters ALWAYS refer to as 'an MP3 Player'. It's funny because it dates the movie, you really have to think back hard to remember a time when the entire category wasn't called iPod
post #129 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by kakman View Post

Why? I'm an Aussie and I'm p!ssing myself about how funny this thread is Don't worry mate, our courts will sort it out and put the rest of the world on the right path

I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.

This case should have been thrown out before it even started.
post #130 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

I just think its a disgusting move by Apple when clearly most tablets all look very similar. Our courts are pathetic for even letting this nonsense get any traction at all.

This case should have been thrown out before it even started.

So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.

In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.
post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

So wait, because you think that everybody infringed the Trade Dress of the iPad you think it's therefore more reasonable to do so? That would be ridiculous even if it were true and it isn't.

In fact not everybody has, as Lenovo and Sony both demonstrate and the idea that tablets have to look like the iPad is laughable, because tablets before it certainly didn't.

No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.
post #132 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.

Cool, that's your opinion just as others have the opinion that Samsung did and right now it's up to a handful of judges around the globe to decide.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #133 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Cool, that's your opinion just as others have the opinion that Samsung did and right now it's up to a handful of judges around the globe to decide.

Indeed, its just embarrassing as an Australian that our courts were foolish enough to buy into this crap.

By the way, I'm typing this on my iMac and currently own 4 other pieces of Apple gear before I get called Microsoft fanboy or something.
post #134 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Indeed, its just embarrassing as an Australian that our courts were foolish enough to buy into this crap.

By the way, I'm typing this on my iMac and currently own 4 other pieces of Apple gear before I get called Microsoft fanboy or something.

I didn't accuse you of being a fanboy (MS, Apple, Android or otherwise). As far as being embarrassed for your country, well the court hasn't even made a decision yet sooooo there's still hope?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #135 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.

Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.
post #136 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Have you read the suit? Have you even read one of the related suits? If not how do you know that nothing is infringed if you don't even know what they're accused of infringing? Opinion with no basis in fact is pretty foolish if you ask me.

Yes I have.
post #137 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Yes I have.

Go on then - go through each of the patents being asserted and explain why they aren't being infringed or aren't valid.
post #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

No, I just think they havent infringed on anything.

Well in that case, Samsung has absolutely nothing to worry about. As far as I'm concerned, Apple has gone through the proper channels to seek redress.
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Go on then - go through each of the patents being asserted and explain why they aren't being infringed or aren't valid.

I really cant be bothered but you can if you want. No matter what I said you would disagree anyway.
post #140 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple is not a patent troll. Apple 1) actually builds things, 2) spends hundreds of millions of dollars in research to build things, 3) doesn't want competitors to ride freely on it's expensive research, 4) made a public statement that it's products were heavily patented, and 5) made it clear that it planned to protect its investment.

Patent trolls don't do research, don't build things, and they do allow companies to rely on allegedly patented ideas and sue as a way to extract money. Apple doesn't want money. It wants Samsung to stop copying its products.

Some Samsung phones are almost exact replicates of iPhones. You have to look carefully to see they are not.

Apple's just defending it's IP. Ugly business, but very much part of the game these days...
Samsung says it's not going to release - http://www.itwire.com/reviews/mobile...axy-tab-in-aus
post #141 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

I really cant be bothered but you can if you want. No matter what I said you would disagree anyway.

If you can't be bothered substantiating your opinion, don't expect anybody to believe that it has any substance.
post #142 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) It would be quite unlike Apple, considering they don't do a lot cheap under-the-radar marketing like many other firms do (e.g., product placements in movies or TV shows).

2) Apple's customers have a bond with the company like few others do. They don't need paid shills in forums like AI.

3) Dozens of sites like AI abound with hundreds of unpaid people (like me) who are not shy about singing its praises (when due), providing it unparalleled free advertising.

4) Being found out doing something so chintzy would not pass an elementary cost-benefit test for Apple.

You have absolutely no clue about the company or how it positions itself, do you?

1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.

2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)
post #143 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

If you can't be bothered substantiating your opinion, don't expect anybody to believe that it has any substance.

Probably about as much as anyone would believe you
post #144 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They do pay for placement on TV shows. I noticed that last year on Fringe. Check the credits after seeing Apple products prominently displayed in a scene, particularly when the product wasn't needed for the storyline.

I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #145 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stupidhero View Post

1) Nice job Apple did there - if you are unable to notice the subtle marketing they are doing.
At least in Germany they are as present in this marketing area, as every other company is.

2) + 3)
That may hold true for those already loyal to Apple, but as you mentioned in 3) Apple has their fanbase doing the marketing for this group already, so they just have to help keep the ball rolling.
On the other hand, for those who are not yet bound to Apple, the opinion of the loyal fanbase values less than the opinion of a seemingly indepent source. I'm also quite confident that Apple's marketing has their influence on - at least some - of those.
I'd go as far as to say, that Apple - on purpose - aims to get some negative critics/reviews on it's product, exactly to acquire more costumers (sounds illogical at first, but it raises sympathy in the non-loyals)

The original contention was about whether or not Apple pays shills to post on internet forums, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Disregarding the opinions of the loyal fan base doesn't really enter into it, since it's hard to know how a paid shill would say nice stuff about Apple while establishing that they aren't fans.

At any rate, I think it's reasonable to assume that Apple doesn't pay shills, partly because it just doesn't seem like Apple's style, and partly because they really don't have to.

As far as deliberately planting negative reviews, to get "sympathy": really? That's pretty bizarre.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #146 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Probably about as much as anyone would believe you

No.

Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.

You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.

Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm curious to know what the credits on Fringe actually say. AFAIK, Apple typically doesn't pay for product placement-- they don't have to, since art directors and production designers like Apple's stuff and chose it for aesthetic rather than paid promotional reasons.

Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/

It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #148 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/

It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.

Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #149 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

Apple wouldn't get paid to have products in the shows, they would've supplied products for free in return for free advertisement. Though in quite a lot of shows the Apple logo/product name is covered by some kind of sticker (usually with a fake company logo on it) because they wont have permission from Apple. I see those stickers all the time in television advertisements.

You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.

For Apple that's a trade secret.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #150 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're quite correct. Apple claims not to pay in real money for product placement, and there's no reason to doubt it. But when the credits show "Promotional Consideration Furnished by" it means that something of value was provided in exchange for the placement. Could be a few iPads, a half dozen Airs, hotel rooms for the production crew, or a 10 oz. gold bar.

For Apple that's a trade secret.

A secret protected by rocket launching, genetically modified T-Rex's like everything else in Apple's catalogue.

With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #151 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

With quite a lot of things relating to props, Apple might want them back once they have been used. Furnishing, not charity.

Of course it wouldn't be charity. How valuable is a 5-10 second product placement on House? Or an entire movie built around Apple products (Gulliver's Travels w/Jack Black) or GM vehicles (Transformers)?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a partial list of the TV shows where "Promotional Consideration furnished by Apple" appears. It means that Apple supplied something of value in exchange for a mention/appearance on the show. It could be money, or it could be free product and/or services.

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0014547/

It looks like Apple is particularly fond of House and 30 Rock.

Which means the art director called Apple up and said "We want to use an iPhone/iPad/iMac on our show/movie, can you send us one?"

Which of course Apple will do, they'd be crazy not to. But that's different from paying people to stick their stuff on screen.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Which means the art director called Apple up and said "We want to use an iPhone/iPad/iMac on our show/movie, can you send us one?"

Which of course Apple will do, they'd be crazy not to. But that's different from paying people to stick their stuff on screen.

None of us "commoners" know what Apple will exchange in return for placement in video/TV/movies, particularly one as high profile as House. It's not something they're willing to discuss. Maybe the networks and movie studios make so much money they're happy to trade a few thousand in advertising for a borrowed iPhone.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #154 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No.

Sorry, your post doesn't have anything to do with anything and you have absolutely no argument in the first place.

You can't say "I don't think they're infringing on anything" and then not explain why you think this, particularly since it's a huge court case that has yet to be decided and Apple obviously believes there's infringing going on.

Don't expect anyone to take you seriously from now on.

If you cant see whats wrong with what Apple is doing then you are just too much of a blinded fanboy to see it. You probably will just blow this off like the rest of the fanboys but you are interested in what your average Aussie thinks of this then read the comments from an article one of Australia's biggest newspaper http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...802-1i90c.html
post #155 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

If you cant see whats wrong with what Apple is doing

Enlighten me. What is Apple "doing"?

Quote:
then you are just too much of a blinded fanboy to see it.

Oh, okay. Never mind if you don't know what you're talking about either.

Quote:
what your average Aussie thinks of this

So none of those commenters have ever created anything in their entire lives. Big deal.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Australian Apple lawsuit halts sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1