or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store - Page 2

post #41 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Just so were clear...
Apple wins suit against someone = good and fair
Apple loses suit against someone = bad and unfair

Pretty much accurate?

Ahhhh little padawan, I see you've been paying attention.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola… at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.

I think it's fairly clear that the Motorola patent is this case really is FRAND. The murky point is the question of who made the first mistake.

Even if the patent is found to be valid and FRAND, then damages could still easily flow either from Motorola to Apple, or from Apple to Motorola, depending on other circumstances of the case.

Did Motorola offer terms which Apple rejected?
Did Apple make a counter-offer which Motorola rejected?

Was Motorola's original offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?
Was Apple's counter-offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?

The answers to these questions would all come into play when determining whether or not Motorola would owe Apple damages for lost sales due to the current injunction, and whether or not Apple owes Motorola damages for the period where Apple may have been wilfully infringing.
post #43 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

So all Apple has to do is show that they played by the rules and Motorola didn't and the products will be back in the store and that bond will go to Apple.


Apple cannot show that, because that is not the way it went down.

Had Apple been able to show that, they would not be in this mess in the first place. The decision seems to be that Apple did NOT play by the rules, and Motorola DID play by the rules.
post #44 of 102
THE BAN IS LIFTED!

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/03/that-w...us-of-patents/

Oh, that's so rich. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #45 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yes.

Apple wins suit: The patent existed and was valid. It has yet to be challenged. For all the talk you trolls spout about "patenting a rectangle", why hasn't that patent been challenged? They've had plenty of time to do it. And if it's as generic as you claim, it will obviously be overturned. It hasn't. If Apple had tried to "patent a rectangle" as you all claim, I'd be on your side. Attempting to patent a simple shape is ludicrous. But they haven't. And no one has challenged the patent.

Apple loses suit: The patent is FRAND and is valid. It is in the running to be challenged, as I already mentioned. If it is challenged, then it's challenged. If Motorola is forced to license it, they're forced to license it. If they're forced to then pay damages to Apple for lost sales during this down time, they're forced to pay sales. Nowhere did I say they WILL or SHOULD pay Apple for the downtime. I said specifically that it's possible, not guaranteed.

If you want my personal opinion, I wish that Apple's tablet patent was just a little more specific. Then there'd be no question as to the infringement of Samsung crap. And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.

Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted. You guys applaud whenever Apple takes such a stance but God forbid anyone rejects terms that Apple wants.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeaman View Post

Whoever decided to go down this route wasn't the smartest one in the room at the time!

That would be Steve.
post #47 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted.

Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #48 of 102
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html

"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
post #49 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

So what say you now? The ban has been lifted.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #50 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



like this isn't a site for Apple enthusiasts is it? /sarcasm

Dont confuse enthusiasts for apologists.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Ahhhh little padawan, I see you've been paying attention.

I'm slow, but I get there eventually.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #51 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Dont confuse enthusiasts for apologists.

Apology accepted.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #52 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html

"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"

I say, welcome to the club. You're a few years late, Android. iPhones are already issued.
post #53 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.

Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.

Motorola has to offer initial terms.

Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.

Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).

If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.

Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):

1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.
post #54 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So what say you now? The ban has been lifted.

Temporarily lifted, until an appeal can be heard. The fact is, lifting the ban was probably for the best.

Apple wasn't even in court for the original trial, so they haven't taken the opportunity to defend themselves yet - we've only heard one side of the story (Motorola's) in the official record.

Referring back to my post immediately above this, this appeal will allow Apple to establish their version of events, for the official record, of exactly what offer Motorola initially offered, and exactly what counter-offer Apple made in response. This will help the court to determine whether or not Apple really was offering Motorola non-FRAND terms as Motorola had previously argued.
post #55 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmnw View Post

The timing of Apples "compliance" with the injunctions is interesting.

. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same EU investigation as Samsung and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #56 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's not the timing but the lack of appeal that is of note. As you say the EU has started looking into Samsung's possible FRAND abuse. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same, and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them

The appeal has been filed, and the ban has already been lifted pending the outcome of the appeal. The net effect on sales for this overnight ban will be negligible -- nowhere near the 100 million euro bond Motorola would have had to have posted.
post #57 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

There's no reason to bring religion/magic into it.

That's one approach to this curious post by kresh, but given his location and signature, it's unlikely to get through to him.

I'd like to see him comment on Jobs's stated purpose of Apple's patent litigation, back when they first filed against HTC:

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it ..."

So kresh, you want to be Mr. Goodkarma, what about it?
post #58 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

You because you can't spell 'losing'.

No big deal. 4S makes up most of the sales anyway. For the iPad, just buy a hot spot and wifi iPad.

Apple could trump GOO order for MMI with one quarters cash flow. GGO PX is about 7.5 Million net of MMI cash. On the other hand, MMI cell business could be gone in 3 years anyway. Don't think GOOG will carry the looses beyond a year or two.
post #59 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeaman View Post

If this was a football team, the fans would be calling for resignations!

If Apple was a football team, they'd be the back-to-back-to-back-to-etc Super Bowl winners, having had consecutive perfect seasons (to the horror of Mercury Morris), and be worshipped by Timmy Tebow.

BUT! They had a penalty flag thrown at them! Oh the humanity!

I don't think anyone would be calling for resignations.
post #60 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html

"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"

That wouldn't be Android any more than Amazon is Android, at least from Google's perspective. It's a modified version of "android" that would be devoid of the tracking that Google relies on.
post #61 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html

"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"

Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.

Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.
post #62 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by pridon View Post

. . . Don't think GOOG will carry the looses beyond a year or two

With all the losers around here who can't spell "lose," I'd be careful not to be too loose in my spelling of "losses."
post #63 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I say, welcome to the club. You're a few years late, Android. iPhones are already issued.

I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.

Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.

Biggest news flash ever at AI!

Hellacool Slaps Down Slappy!
post #65 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.

If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.
post #66 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html

"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"

I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.

Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.
post #67 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So I assume you'll come back once these FRAND patents are forced to be licensed and claim they're not FRAND and that Apple is being a 'bully' and doing it illegally.



Must resist urge to continue spinning this post back against Motorola


So wasn't the issue that Apple wanted to write their own terms on FRAND licensing? All of these injunctions are dumb either way.
post #68 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

So wasn't the issue that Apple wanted to write their own terms on FRAND licensing? All of these injunctions are dumb either way.

Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Banning devices for breaking some patents
Injunction Junction, who has gumption?
I got three iDevices
that get slavishly copied
Injunction Junction, what's their function?
iPad, iPhone, iPod,
they'll get you pretty far

iPad.
That's a tablet, the first of the NEW tablets.
iPhone.
A revolutionary smartphone;
Not the first with a touch, but the first
to do it right.
i, Pod. When you want your music right
in your pocket. Or clipped on
as the case may be.

Injunction Junction, what's your function?
They say they're competing but it's
nothing but flattery.
Injunction Junction, what's your function

Et cetera.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #69 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.

Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.

In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.
post #70 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Banning devices for breaking some patents
Injunction Junction, who has gumption?
I got three iDevices
that get slavishly copied
Injunction Junction, what's their function?
iPad, iPhone, iPod,
they'll get you pretty far

iPad.
That's a tablet, the first of the NEW tablets.
iPhone.
A revolutionary smartphone;
Not the first with a touch, but the first
to do it right.
i, Pod. When you want your music right
in your pocket. Or clipped on
as the case may be.

Injunction Junction, what's your function?
They say they're competing but it's
nothing but flattery.
Injunction Junction, what's your function

Et cetera.

Did you ft permission from School House Rock for that little soliloquy?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #71 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.

Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.

Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.

In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.

Yes - correct, but I did not mean SCIFs or VTRs which have more restrictive requirements than regular secure areas. I should have been more precise in what I meant.

I was unaware that the iPad had been approved for classified use. We are not there yet, but that sounds very promising.
post #73 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Did you ft permission from School House Rock for that little soliloquy?

No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #74 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.

Specific Android phones?

You're kidding, right?

This has nothing to do with the phone. It has to do with the operating system.

The US military had to actually tinker with the kernel (of course) to make it secure.

After the changes they can use damn near any phone that will accept the hacked system.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #75 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Specific Android phones?

You're kidding, right?

This has nothing to do with the phone. It has to do with the operating system.

The US military had to actually tinker with the kernel (of course) to make it secure.

No, I'm not kidding at all. Which part of my post do you think was incorrect? The approved phones are definitely Android-based.

EDIT: I'll save you some looking around since since you might have better things to do. Google "Dell Venue".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, I'm not kidding at all. Which part of my post do you think was incorrect? The approved phones are definitely Android-based.

EDIT: I'll save you some looking around since since you might have better things to do. Google "Dell Venue".

"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."

Tweaked.

Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.

Do you get it now.

ie. they can't just buy a phone and use it as is.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #77 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.

Yea hide behind parody/poetic license lol
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.

Motorola has to offer initial terms.

Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.

Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).

If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.

Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):

1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.

Your logic is backwards here... FRAND inhibits the patent owner, not the licensee. It's not the licensee that has to be fair, it the IP owner who has to fairly license its technology to ANYONE who wants to use it in compliance with an industry standard. This is the agreement they make with standards bodies in order to get their IP included as part of an industry standard. Licensees don't make the first offer here, the IP owner does. They set the fee and under standards agreements that licensing fee must be fair to everyone, meaning they can't charge one company significantly more than another company and they can't use the IP to coerce another company into other terms ... this is what Nokia tried to do with Apple; they eventually settled out of court.

This is basically Apple's tactic here. This is why they were a no show at the first hearing. They wanted to move the case to the EU Standards Commission. They now have grounds that Motorola attempted and successfully used FRAND patents to get Apple's products off the market. Next step, petition the EU to add Motorola to their investigation into Samsung, who has attempted, but so far failed to get Apple's devices off the market.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #79 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."

Tweaked.

Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.

Do you get it now.

ie. they can't just buy a phone and use it as is.

They can buy the Dell Venue. I don't understand why it's so important to you to find some technicality showing my post was incorrect. It wasn't. My original post:
"I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been."

Get it now?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.

There were many articles relating to the US military using iOS devices.

Here's the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for "iPhone deployed by military"

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...y-Duty-242593/

That article is from 2009.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple pulls all 3G iOS devices but iPhone 4S from German online store