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

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

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.

Originally Posted by kresh

karma

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

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.

Originally Posted by Nairb

As Apple refused to sign the FRAND agreement, but rather wanted to sign another agreement with FRAND clauses and prices included, they forgeit their FRAND rights. Motorala were not obliged to licence the patents to Apple under this altered agreement. At least that is how this judge sees it. Apple can enter a FRAND agreement and get the ban lifted instantly but in doing so they forfeit their right to fight the patent itself which is what they want to do. It also opens the door for Motorola to ask a higher than FRAND payment for items already sold outside of the FRAND agreement.

Originally Posted by Andysol

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

Pretty much accurate?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

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?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

I still don't see anything about the iPad. In addition more recent articles indicate that Apple products are not (yet?) approved for secure Defense Dept or intelligence agency use, altho the government may have made some allowance for the head of the Joint Chiefs to use his personal iPad following specific protocols.

Originally Posted by Flaneur

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."

Originally Posted by monstrosity

Ha, I don't normally pick people up on spelling mistakes (because my English isn't that great either), but that was the third time today I have seen 'lose' spelt wrong, and perhaps the 5th or 6th this week.

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Wow! Really?

Step 1. Go to your favorite search engine

Step 2. Enter, "iPads in the military" in the search field

Step 3. Look through results

Step 4. Click on link. If not applicable, repeat Step 3.


Again, this was the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for, "iPads in the military"

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...th-on-an-ipad/


Your problem seems to be not that you CAN'T find anything, it's that you DON'T WANT TO find anything. If you want to make a point, try backing it up, otherwise you're just a tool... troll... whatever.

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Wow! Really?

Step 1. Go to your favorite search engine

Step 2. Enter, "iPads in the military" in the search field

Step 3. Look through results

Step 4. Click on link. If not applicable, repeat Step 3.


Again, this was the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for, "iPads in the military"

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...th-on-an-ipad/


Your problem seems to be not that you CAN'T find anything, it's that you DON'T WANT TO find anything. If you want to make a point, try backing it up, otherwise you're just a tool... troll... whatever.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

IF the iPhone and/or iPad is approved for secure uses by the Dept of Defense or US Intelligence agencies, apparently they don't know it.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/28/pentag...its-clearance/

"Research in Motions BlackBerry OS has been the platform of choice for the Department of Defense for many years thanks to RIMs robust security. However, with the rise of Googles Android and Apples iOS operating systems, the DoD may be moving away from BlackBerry devices. In a recent Security Technical Implementation Guide, the DoD approved the use of Android-powered devices by its staff, but the Dell Venue is currently the only phone that qualifies. The DoD states that a device must be running Android 2.2 and have the Android Market stripped from its core in order to be used by staff. Moreover, all web browsing must be done through a DoD proxy server and classified information cannot be sent, received or accessed by Android handsets. Apples iPhones and iPads are also being tested by the Defense Information Systems Agency, however due to Apples tightly controlled ecosystem, the devices have not yet been approved. Installing DoD third-party security software was more difficult on iOS than Androids open-source framework. Additionally, government officials said they were uncomfortable with Apples ability to track its users locations."

Sounds pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Originally Posted by fredaroony

Yes, that's how this site works. Ironically, one of the biggest trolls seems to be a mod!

Originally Posted by island hermit

You are not getting this at all are you.

Can military personnel go and buy a Dell Venue off the rack and use it?

Originally Posted by fredaroony

Yes, that's how this site works. Ironically, one of the biggest trolls seems to be a mod!

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

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 Nairb

As Apple refused to sign the FRAND agreement, but rather wanted to sign another agreement with FRAND clauses and prices included, they forgeit their FRAND rights. Motorala were not obliged to licence the patents to Apple under this altered agreement. At least that is how this judge sees it. Apple can enter a FRAND agreement and get the ban lifted instantly but in doing so they forfeit their right to fight the patent itself which is what they want to do. It also opens the door for Motorola to ask a higher than FRAND payment for items already sold outside of the FRAND agreement.

It all comes down to if Apple want to fight this all the way, and then seeing who wins. I believe that Apple know they are violating patents but think they can have the patent invalidated in a court battle.

The Samsung one is a totally different situation because Samsung are arguing they should have more than FRAND payments for FRAND patents. I doubt that Samsung will be penalised heavily for this as they are trying this out against Apple, not an up and coming company that doesnt have the cash to fight Samsung in any arena they wish.

Motorola will not be investigated for trying to enforce a patent that Apple have refused to sign a FRAND agreement for. Had Apple signed the agreement it would be another story.


That is a lay man's interpretation based on what I have read over the last few months. Of course it is only as good as the reliability of my information.

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.

Originally Posted by mocseg

That is the reason he became a mod. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by majjo

If so, then Apple][ should be the owner of this site

Originally Posted by fredaroony

Yes, that's how this site works. Ironically, one of the biggest trolls seems to be a mod!

Originally Posted by Just_Me

LOL. Yeah

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Thanks for not bothering to read my explanation. Thanks for the completely laughable accusation.



They just keep piling on the bon mots.

Originally Posted by majjo

The question is over the terms of the licensing agreement.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Thanks for not bothering to read my explanation. Thanks for the completely laughable accusation

Originally Posted by fredaroony

Funny how you automatically knew I was talking about you!

I read your posts but your issue is that you're so blinded with your love for Apple that you cannot have a balanced view.

...I can also see where they are wrong.