or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u] - Page 3

post #81 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Incorrect.

In my world, a construction company (Apple) would order a particular type of steel from a steel company (Samsung), then hire construction workers (Foxconn) to make the house.

In other words, Apple was responsible for how the house looks, Samsung was responsible for providing the necessary tech to make Apple's vision come to fruition, and Foxconn provided the labor.

Nope, not a patent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

"... is a brand name"


It's a trademark, not a specific tech of LCD. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So when you see a beautiful building, you give credit to the steel company? Not the architect? D'okay...

And it's a trademark, yes, and the tech behind each variation is patented. And it's sourced from multiple manufacturers.
post #82 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

iPhone 5 sales in 1 quarter = 20 million

Galaxy S4 sales in less than 1 month = 10 million

I leave it to you to calculate which one has the higher average sales rate.

Now are you looking at the 5's first quarter in which it was only available for 2 months plus a week? And in that first weekend, they sold 5 MM.
post #83 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

It's too bad that in the case of houses, the architect did build something a 2-year-old couldn't design.

In the case of smartphones, a 2-year-old could come up with something like a rectangle with rounded corners. Hell, even LG had the prada. So no, I won't give Apple credit for that.

So Sammy's designers must be premies since they just copied the iPhone.
post #84 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

It's too bad that in the case of houses, the architect did build something a 2-year-old couldn't design.

In the case of smartphones, a 2-year-old could come up with something like a rectangle with rounded corners. Hell, even LG had the prada. So no, I won't give Apple credit for that.

Yes, the iPhone 5 is just a rectangle.
post #85 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Yes. I know that there are quite a few Apple zealots which made the initial sales very high, but notice how they were only able to see 15 million for the rest of the quarter, and during the HOLIDAYS, mind you.
And yet it was the #1 phone in the world. And Sammy shipped 10 MM in a month. Apple sold 5 MM in three days.
post #86 of 166
I'm not buying anything Samsung and will try as best I can to avoid things with Samsung inside unless its made by Apple.
post #87 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I've lost track of when that case gets revisited... Wasn't Koh supposed to re-review the amount lopped off the awarded total to possibly increase or decrease the total amount?

 

Yes.  Koh ordered a new trial to determine the disputed amount from the poorly done jury reward sheet.  It's supposed to start this November.

 

This is not to be confused with the other IP trial due to start in Spring 2014.  (That's the one where she has limited the number of claim construction issues, so the trial can at least get started this decade.)

post #88 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Samsung's mission is to make other companies make something popular, then to steal their thunder. Again, there's nothing wrong with this strategy.
Apple didn't invent anything with the iPhone. They made a prettier-looking device compared to Samsung's F700 and the LG Prada, but there was no inventing going around.

Suppose Apple invented 3G. Then they'd have grounds to stop competitors. However, that's not the case. Apple made a pretty-looking device and that's about it.

A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.
post #89 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

I think you missed the word "suppose" in there.

How else is someone supposed to read it? Earlier you claimed Samsung is inventing 5G.
post #90 of 166

I find it funny about Samsung this and Samsung that...take away Google's Android and they have no software worthy competing against Apple in any form or shape.

 

Frankly, I stopped buying any Samsung product. Anyone but theirs at this point.

post #91 of 166
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
Plus, there's such a thing as multitasking.

 

"Not in iOS!" 👈👈😎


Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
A single company can't invent something like 3G, ugh.

 

Oh? I'd say a single company (heck, person) could be responsible for tech that then becomes a standard liable under FRAND due to its quality. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly possible.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #92 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Except the retina display is a trademark, not a patent, giving my argument more credence.

 

"Retina" is a trademark used to refer to the resolution (pixel density) of a display at a given distance from the eyes that make it (almost) impossible to distinguish individual pixels.

 

The LCD technology itself (IPS) is not Apple's, it was originally developed by Hitachi and further developed by LG.

 

However,

 

The display IP used to make those LCDs is Apple's. 

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-reveals-two-retina-display-technologies.html

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/06/apples-retina-display-patent-comes-to-light.html

 

In fact Apple has another LCD patent that combines the touch sensors into the displays themselves, removing a layer.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/.services/blog/6a0120a5580826970c0120a5580ebf970c/search?filter.q=touch+screen

 

 

And just for shits and giggles, an article stating that Samsung is having a hard time matching the Retina display in the iPad...

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/samsung-struggles-to-match-apples-retina-display-quality.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to add links.


Edited by mjtomlin - 6/4/13 at 7:43pm
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 #93 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

This is total bull! Apple is using Qualcomm product

Not in the AT&T version of Apple's iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, as well as cellular versions of the original iPad and iPad 2.

post #94 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Not in iOS!" 👈
👈
😎


Oh? I'd say a single company (heck, person) could be responsible for tech that then becomes a standard liable under FRAND due to its quality. It doesn't happen often, but it's certainly possible.

True, I suppose. But unlikely, since multiple companies have to support it, otherwise it's basically proprietary.

Usually a standards body will be formed, for instance.

Technically a company can invent something, and then release it as an industry standard, but its pretty rare, especially if it involves communication tech that uses bandwidth and frequencies governed by governments.
post #95 of 166
At the end of the day, we have to acknowledge that Apple's legal team sucks. Big time. Just like the CFO, its lawyers seem to have been far surpassed by the size and scope of the company. It's deeply disheartening.

Merits (or lack of it) notwithstanding, I am dubious about the whole e-books spat as well.
post #96 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Not in the AT&T version of Apple's iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, as well as cellular versions of the original iPad and iPad 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

The problem is that these patents aren't anything big. Although there are many components going into the LCD, Apple is patenting the application of a supplier's supply. Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.

About the 2nd one: This is merely software calibration. Why is it even a patent?

The 3rd one is merely on-screen, which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.

Software is meaningless, right? Have fun using your tech without software.

Patents can involve the implementation of components.

Samsung, like LG, et. al. make components, and make many according to another company's IP and specifications. They're a foundry. That's why Apple's displays have been color representation, and why their SoC's typically beat whatever the comparable Sammy SoC happens to be.
post #97 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

How does its legal team suck? Apple has nothing to stand on with its BS patents.
If Apple engineered something for once, they'd have something to fight Samsung with. Having patents relating to shapes and colors aren't gonna hold much weight in the court of law.

Because the only way to engineer something is to physically manufacture it. D'ok.
post #98 of 166

First of all, high tech patents are so different from life science, pharmaceutical ones.  For instance, even in an LCD there are a ton of patents, and for a smartphone, you guess.  However, only a few patents are probably embodied in a medicine pill.  The ITC importation ban on patent infringement made more sense with those medicines.

 

So if anything, you guys should be upset that the ITC can ban something solely because a tiny bit of technology is infringed on in a smartphone that probably embodies thousands of patents.  I firmly believe that the section 337 investigation should be modified to limit some powers of the ITC.

 

Asking for a SEP held by Samsung to be treated differently is I think misplaced.  A SEP is still a patent that should be compensated if used - just like how Apple wanted to recoup its SEP royalties from other users.  The question is how fair were the terms, and whether the parties were cooperative and willing to enter into an agreement in good faith.  Apple probably failed on that good faith part most likely.

 

I am actually still surprised that the ITC did not end up finding Samsung abused its SEPs, since I thought there were enough evidence to be stretched to have such a holding.  I had every reasons to be impressed by the stance that the ITC took, just like how you guys had every rights to be upset that the ITC took this position.

 

People think I am anti-Apple or something just because I often go against Apple's position.  Well, I worked with Apple's in-house counsels and represented matters for Apple.  Blindly propping every move Apple makes does not change the fact that Apple is fallible and sometimes makes bad decisions.

post #99 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.

Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.

 

ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.

 

- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.

 

Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.

American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.

 

Take it to PTO and ask for reexamination.  I am pretty sure that those are not just algorithms for them not being patentable subject matter.

 

If you really think one type of patent is more worthy just because it is a complex EE hardware than a seemingly simple interface related software than you are absolutely wrong.  The worthy of a patent is really how many people want it.  As pointed previously, Apple's patents are often wanted by many.

post #100 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

- Software isn't meaningless, but patenting general algorithms is abhorable.
Did you even read the patent application. It basically says that Apple patented the algorithm for making the green pixel less pronounced.

ONLY if they're significant enough to produce a new invention. Using the next generation NVIDIA GPU on your desktop is NOT worthy of becoming a patent.

- I hope you realize the Nexus 10 processor is 1.5x more powerful than Apple's inefficient A6-series processors.

Also, Apple has no genuine IP. It's all just Samsung's tech. You are right that Samsung and LG makes screens based on Apple's choice of screen size and resolution, but they're both Samsung and LG's tech, not Apple's.
American companies don't engineer hardware anymore (Except for CPUs and GPUs). Every other hardware component is done by Asian engineers.

If its all Samsung tech, then why is Apple able to take its IP and move it to another manufacturer, as it's been doing? Or how can they have multiple vendors build the same component?

Maybe because Apple owns and develops the IP and outsources it to be manufactured?

If it was all Samsung IP, then Apple couldn't have TSMC or LG or Sharp or any other OEM make it.

EDIT: Define "1.5x" as powerful... Do you mean in performance benchmarks? Or because it has more Ghz?
post #101 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

 

The 3rd one is merely in-cell (on-cell), which Samsung has been using since 2010. It's a copycat patent.

 

That's funny since Samsung is the biggest copycat the industry has ever seen. Most of the technology they use is licensed from other companies. Most of the designs they copy are from other companies. The only thing they can do themselves is stamp out components and even then the yields are the worst in the industry. TSMC, TI, Intel and IBM are all much, much better at manufacturing than Samsung could ever hope for.

 

Samsung spends most of its money in marketing, which includes buying politicians, judges, lobbyists, etc. And of course their brainwashing campaign, which seems to be working well for them.

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 #102 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

- Funny. Latest rumors indicate Apple is having difficulties moving to other suppliers because their tech isn't quite up there.

- *sigh* They DON'T build the same components. The "retina display", for example, was from Samsung and LG, but the screens were NOT the same technology; hence, Samsung's screens were vastly superior to LG's.

- TSMC isn't making anything for Apple, yet. The processors are still Samsung-only, and that's because part of Samsung's designs are in the A5 and A6 series. That's why Apple can't move. Unlike the screen, having processors with different performance can cause a shit storm with Apps.

So once again, I shall reiterate that Apple is an art company, not a tech company.

So much lies.

The difference in display results has to do with tech, yes... The tech of the actual machines and manufacturing skill. They're foundries. Some are better than others. That has nothing to do with the technology behind the display itself, which is owned by Apple.

Same with the chips. Apple OWNS their chip. The issue is there are few foundries that can build to the scale and quality that Apple needs.
post #103 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

The only thing I see Samsung copying is the design of consumer products. All their tech is made in-house, and that's something I respect. Samsung stands by their own tech.

Unfortunately for you Apple fans, designs should ONLY be defended under certain circumstances (AKA. Direct look-alike). Otherwise, you'd have a market with only 1 car manufacturer, 1 TV manufacturer, 1 phone manufacturer, etc. etc. So I support Samsung's stance in the current smartphone war.

Also, LOL at you thinking Samsung is a horrible manufacturer. Samsung is the best in the industry. They are second to none. No other manufacturer is as diverse as Samsung is, while providing the highest quality components with incredibly high yields. LG couldn't do it. SHARP couldn't do it (In fact, SHARP's screens were laughed at in Apple's headquarters because SHARP couldn't produce a SINGLE panel that was on-par with Samsung's).
That's why Apple keeps crawling back to them like a whore ex you dumped like 10 times already. TSMC is only a foundry. NVIDIA, Qualcomm and AMD are all looking at Samsung now.
Intel is ahead of Samsung at the moment in regards to CPU manufacturing. That's the only area where Samsung is 2nd.

Samsung spends most of its money on R&D and restructuring. They devoted $40.2 billion last year alone to R&D. Just because Samsung has a high marketing budget doesn't mean it doesn't engage in R&D.

They make Android in house?
post #104 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Obviously, we're talking about hardware, not software.

Hardware without software is meaningless. Given your posts and patent theories, you clearly have a bias toward hardware.

The marriage of hardware and software is why Apple's products are so popular, and why Samsung has sought to emulate them.
post #105 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

The only thing I see Samsung copying is the design of consumer products. All their tech is made in-house, and that's something I respect. Samsung stands by their own tech.

Unfortunately for you Apple fans, designs should ONLY be defended under certain circumstances (AKA. Direct look-alike). Otherwise, you'd have a market with only 1 car manufacturer, 1 TV manufacturer, 1 phone manufacturer, etc. etc. So I support Samsung's stance in the current smartphone war.

So how many cars look like the mustang, beetle, Aztec, jeep, etc? The curvy glass bottle? Only usable by coke.

Last reply before I add to my ignore list.
post #106 of 166
Samsung is an abomination.
post #107 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

Yes, as I'm sure none of you tech-illiterate mac fans could even write a "hello world" script if your lives depended on it. lol.gif

Some of us work for a living and said work involves HTML, JavaScript, CSS, et. al. not to mention the occasional custom built database with scripts, etc.

Being illiterate sure makes that difficult.

"Tech" stuff isn't really difficult and shouldn't be bragged about
post #108 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

At least Samsung doesn't steal IP. Apple, on the other hand...

Is this the great American company Americans want representing them? lol.gif

A jury of Samsung's peers felt differently, a billion dollars differently.
post #109 of 166

you realize many of samsung's patents are being invalidated too, right?

 

and the reasons for invalidating apple's patents are not because they are inferior to samsung's patents, right?

post #110 of 166

and you know pto (an agency) invalidation does not mean the federal courts (article III courts) should follow.

post #111 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

and you know pto (an agency) invalidation does not mean the federal courts (article III courts) should follow.

Don't bother.
post #112 of 166
Don't confuse terms, please. Patents are the nowadays equivalent to the "business" of Vito Corleone. It's just business. Apple and Samsung can do business, because they're big "families". Every few years there're wars between "families", but they're "men of honour" and finally come to "reasonable" peace in their business.

Now don't confuse your position in the business. You're like a small shop owner: Corleone will be pleased to "help" you, but don't dare to play the business, because you're small and you'll be shot.

That's it on computers. Developers no longer develop technology, unless they're on a "family" big enough to play this "business"
Edited by ecs - 6/4/13 at 9:48pm
post #113 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

The only thing I see Samsung copying is the design of consumer products. All their tech is made in-house, and that's something I respect. Samsung stands by their own tech.

 

Unfortunately for you Apple fans, designs should ONLY be defended under certain circumstances (AKA. Direct look-alike). Otherwise, you'd have a market with only 1 car manufacturer, 1 TV manufacturer, 1 phone manufacturer, etc. etc. So I support Samsung's stance in the current smartphone war.

 

Also, LOL at you thinking Samsung is a horrible manufacturer. Samsung is the best in the industry. They are second to none. No other manufacturer is as diverse as Samsung is, while providing the highest quality components with incredibly high yields. LG couldn't do it. SHARP couldn't do it (In fact, SHARP's screens were laughed at in Apple's headquarters because SHARP couldn't produce a SINGLE panel that was on-par with Samsung's).

That's why Apple keeps crawling back to them like a whore ex you dumped like 10 times already. TSMC is only a foundry. NVIDIA, Qualcomm and AMD are all looking at Samsung now.

Intel is ahead of Samsung at the moment in regards to CPU manufacturing. That's the only area where Samsung is 2nd.

 

Samsung spends most of its money on R&D and restructuring. They devoted $40.2 billion last year alone to R&D. Just because Samsung has a high marketing budget doesn't mean it doesn't engage in R&D.

 

Wow! Are you way off. Samsung does not do all their own tech, they license a lot of it as do a lot of tech companies. You have this inability to separate manufacture with invention and invention with manufacture. You also seem to want to redefine what it means to invent so that it justifies your juvenile view of the world.

 

Their R&D budget is put towards studies of who they should spend their marketing money on and of course how better to dispose of all the unsold returned phones they flooded the market with.

 

LOL At you thinking Samsung is the best. Prove it. You can't. And of course they're second in CPU, who else is going to want their components in crappy Samsung products, that have the highest failure rate in the industry. Samsung's panels aren't better, they just had plenty of time to work the bugs out of their process as they were the first Apple contracted. Both LG and Sharp got the bugs worked out now and are making panels and Samsung is out.

 

Let's not forgot all the times they've been dragged into court for antitrust issues all over the world. They have to be the most immoral of all tech companies. Including by the EU and DoJ who are currently looking into suing Samsung for violating SEPs. Personally, I hope the standards bodies around the world take a look at what Samsung is doing and decide that Samsung will never be allowed to submit IP towards another standard again, and furthermore, invalidate any IP that resides in any current standard.

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 #114 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 View Post

I don't have a bias towards hardware.

 

Suppose you write this algorithm that removes punctuation in a textfile, then creates another textfile that has all the words on 1 column, I don't think my method should be patentable, as I'm sure that many other software developers have done it my way as well.

 

public static String removePunctuation(String input)
...
 

 

Of course that wouldn't be patentable, you haven't done anything any other programmer wouldn't do. However, if you're trying to simplify software down to something like that, then why not hardware... I made a slim metal fastener, that when with hammer will hold two pieces of wood together, I'm calling it a nail. See, I've just reasoned, using your logic (or lack of), that NO hardware should ever be patentable.

 

You do have a bias towards hardware, because you think software is simplistic and trivial.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 

Unfortunately for you Apple fans, designs should ONLY be defended under certain circumstances (AKA. Direct look-alike). Otherwise, you'd have a market with only 1 car manufacturer, 1 TV manufacturer, 1 phone manufacturer, etc. etc. So I support Samsung's stance in the current smartphone war.

 

 

 

Uh, no you wouldn't, just as in the smartphone market all of the products you mentioned can have their own unique look - unfortunately for you brainwashed Samesung fans, Samsung lacks the ability to be unique, so you need an excuse for their outright copying - and not just in the phone market, they copy competitors products in all markets.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 

- *sigh* They DON'T build the same components. The "retina display", for example, was from Samsung and LG, but the screens were NOT the same technology; hence, Samsung's screens were vastly superior to LG's.

 

 

Do you know anything about manufacturing? Do you know anything about yields? I'm guessing that's a big fat, NO.

 

Bakery A and Bakery B can both be hired to make a cake using my recipe. Those cakes may not turn out the same due too many details to describe, even though they followed my recipe exactly. This is the same for Apple's displays. Samsung also had horrible yields and quality control issues when they switched to producing new displays for Apple, but over time, they worked the kinks out. Apple later added LG, and at first their yields and control issues where bad, but they eventually worked them out as well.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 


- TSMC isn't making anything for Apple, yet. The processors are still Samsung-only, and that's because part of Samsung's designs are in the A5 and A6 series. That's why Apple can't move. Unlike the screen, having processors with different performance can cause a shit storm with Apps.

 

 

 

Actually, Samsung had no hand in designing the A6... Even a Samsung company official stated that the A6 was the first without any input from Samsung, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but this could be your inability to separate invention with manufacture again.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshKar426 

 


Yes, you read that right. It's like Dell patenting using the AMD 7850 graphics card on desktops. It's asinine.
 

 

Samsung didn't invent the transistor or the integrated circuit or OLED or flexible displays or radio or... and yet all these previous inventions are used in all the products and components they make. So again, by using your logic (or lack of) all they've done is take an AMD graphics card and plug into their Dell and patented it. THEY HAVENT INVENTED ANYTHING EITHER.

 

Well at least we can agree on that. Now that that's over. Yes, you read that correctly.

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 #115 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In statement to AllThingsD, Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said, ?We are disappointed that the Commission has overturned an earlier ruling and we plan to appeal,?"Today?s decision has no impact on the availability of Apple products in the United States. Samsung is using a strategy which has been rejected by courts and regulators around the world. They?ve admitted that it?s against the interests of consumers in Europe and elsewhere, yet here in the United States Samsung continues to try to block the sale of Apple products by using patents they agreed to license to anyone for a reasonable fee.?

 

Pet peeve time. I know these question marks are the curly quotes and curly apostrophes ("smart quotes") that Microsoft Word loves so much. I assume the problem is that your forum database uses ISO-8859-1 (aka ISO Latin-1) for ASCII encoding. Word uses Windows-1252 (aka CP1252, aka ANSI Latin-1). I know, confusing, but the upshot is that you can't "cast" ASCII strings that contain smart quotes from 1252 to 8859-1. The ASCII values used by smart quotes (0x91 to 0x94) aren't printable characters in 8859-1. Either switch your database to Windows-1252 or better still, switch to Unicode and properly convert your CP1252 strings into Unicode strings. Or, if you really want to continue using 8859-1, use some Perl or sed script to replace the smart quotes with ordinary "dumb" ones. Same with the long dash character, and any other that falls inside the C1 (Latin-1 Supplement) range.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #116 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'm unfamiliar with French law, but everything I know about sanity and common sense says that this is ludicrous.

 

 

 

You change "French" into "US" and we agree, OK ?

post #117 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

LOL.  All models that Apple would love to take off the market anyway.
If they aren't already EOL'd.

This pretty much. The Retina iPad (3rd generation) and the iPhone 5 have LTE radios, so they're not affected by this. The iPad 2 and the iPhone4 could be discontinued and that will pretty much do nothing to the marketplace.

Honestly, Samsung sueing Samsung customers for incompetence on Samsung's part is a bad idea and if I were shopping around a project to be built, Samsung would end up at the bottom of the list, if they even end up on the list.
post #118 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exmacuser View Post

Apple does not keep ANY money in the USA.
 

 

Doesn't Apple keep about 1/3 of their cash in the USA?

 

Look up Braeburn Capital.   Its' Apple's investment arm, based in Nevada (which a lot of companies do so they don't have to pay California corporate taxes on the earnings).

post #119 of 166

How about Samsung made components that are in iPhone?. Are they banned too?.
 

post #120 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exmacuser View Post

Apple does not keep ANY money in the USA.

 

Doesn't Apple keep about 1/3 of their cash in the USA?

Look up Braeburn Capital.   Its' Apple's investment arm, based in Nevada (which a lot of companies do so they don't have to pay California corporate taxes on the earnings).

Yes. In fact, I recall reading somewhere (can't find it now) that most of the cash is parked in US government bills and bonds, right here stateside.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC issues US import ban on older iPhones and iPads for infringement of Samsung patents [u]