There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
As soon as I read Mueller's name I didn't bother to read it... realizing that it was just business for Verizon. It's just the same thing that Apple and Samsung are doing/would do if and when injunctions against their products are enforced. Nobody likes to have a big percentage of their business removed (and, as another point... I doubt this will affect the Verizon/Apple relationship... it would hurt Apple to stop selling on Verizon... and make Apple look stupid).
Verizon wants control of handsets that they sell. Samsung allows carriers complete control of their handsets. Apple doesn't. So the reason is obvious. Verizon (and other carriers) are afraid of Apple. Apple started the concept that cellphones' features and software are not to be controlled by carriers, but by the maker (Apple). This scarred the US carriers. Luckily for them, Android came and brought control back to the carriers. So in this situation, it's in the best interest of Verizon to support Samsung as Samsung continue to allow Verizon to molest and rape their phones, while Apple don't.
Rape is a violent sexual assult on another person. Molestation carries the idea of sexual assult on a child and pedophilia. This is an intellectual property dispute. The two have nothing to do with each other.
There is one huge problem with this statement. Verizon requesting the right to insert a brief of any kind into this suit means they have to take one side or the other. This is a case of Apple vs Samsung, so they have to be on one side or the other, unless they were considered a hostile witness. In this case, they desire to input their 2 cents. So it is against Apple! Simple.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
Why would oracle want to shut down android. (I think thats what you mean Android is an OS and Droid is a line of phones released on Verizon's network.) Their is no gain in oracle getting android stopped. If anything they would want it to be as successful as possible. They want royalties not to shut it down. Only apple and Microsoft stand to really lose by android OS being more powerful.
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
No, you missed my point completely. I think they came out in support of Samsung on their own but in a way that made no comment on the merits of Apple's IP infringement suit and leaving open plenty of room for Apple's attorney's. I think they played both sides beautifully.
Further, I can't see anything I wrote that would imply that I thought "Samsung out them up to this." Are you sure you were responding to the correct post?
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
It's all about being selfish and only looking out for one's self or institution that's a reason the world is in the financial straits it's in today. No one cares about anyone else, just how it benefits them or their business. We need to bring back that Union mentality of the 20th century where if the maintenance people had a valid grievance and went on strike the Machinists, Teamsters, and Guild workers wouldn't cross the picket lines until their Union Brothers were heard. Now if Apple infringed on a Verizon Patent how would they feel if Samsung backed Apple in ripping off Verizon. Labor Unions were formed originally to combat the selfish attitudes of owners and management now that they have been neutered by governments selfishness and greed is again the Mantra of the Corporate World.
As was stated earlier Verizon should have played Switzerland and remained neutral. Apple has spent years and Million of $ developing a very friendly user interface and to have a company so blatantly mimic the look and feel should be unconscionable. It not even causing a twinge of guilt brings into being the integrity of the infringing company. Segments of the Asian Theater are notorious for cloning another designers IP and then selling it on the world market to the detriment of the original designers product (Clothes, Appliances, Automobiles, Cosmetics, etc). And for these agencies (ITC,FTC) to take over a year to hear and act on these time sensitive issues is also a travesty by the time the case is heard new products have been introduced and the issues at complaint are already outdated. It's like in the time of war bringing the firing on a particular target before congress for approval before pressing the fire button.
I've never believed that Apple is trying to stifle Samsung from fear of competition... I've always believed that Samsung betrayed Apple's trust at some point (ie. used prior knowledge for their own products etc.) but Apple has no direct proof to take to court so they are going after Samsung in any way possible.
I realize that Apple is going after others as well but it seems that Samsung is always being hit the hardest.
Yes, Samsung is being hit the hardest. And the Galaxy II numbers are really impressive. They have sold 10M units in less than 6 months, with most of the sales outside of US.
There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
Mueller is pissed that Google abuses FOSS with their "open" stance which they use as marketing bulls*t, part of which probably also involves paying people to make posts like the posts you make in attempt to discredit ANYTHING he says on various tech sites and blogs, like this one.
Mueller is pissed that Google abuses FOSS with their "open" stance which they use as marketing bulls*t, part of which involves paying people to make posts like yours in attempt to discredit ANYTHING he says.
Gatorguy was pro Mueller when it appeared that he was against Apple (Motorola/HTC vs. Apple)... but that quickly changed... \
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
Apple aren't trying to put Samsung out of business, they just want them to stop copying their stuff, as the German judge said, there is plenty of room to come up with designs that don't infringe on Apple's IP.
Then please describe how a hit on Verizon's business is relevant to intellectual property infringement involving two other companies.
The key here is that Verizon's brief is intended not to take sides on the patent infringement case, but to argue against a preliminary injunction. If you understand that, the rest follows.
Apple aren't trying to put Samsung out of business, they just want them to stop copying their stuff, as the German judge said, there is plenty of room to come up with designs that don't infringe on Apple's IP.
That makes sense, particularly since Apple cannot possibly put Samsung out of business.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
You almost have it right (except the part about putting anyone out of business, which is absurd). But you're missing the point that the brief is aimed at stopping the preliminary injunction. Understand that, and you'll understand I'm right again, as usual
Mueller was against Apple? I missed that. Love to read it. Any link?
Mueller uncovers some good material. But I do believe his Apple bias is a bit strong, and taints his analysis.
I've never been pro-Mueller, but true that I never had an issue with him when he first got on my radar. After a few months reading his blogs, comparing him with other sources, paying closer attention to all his posts and doing some add'l research, I have a completely different view of him. Do some research yourself if you still believe he's not working on Microsoft's behalf, and now has the appearance of adding Apple as a client.
Start with an easy Google search: Florian Mueller Microsoft client
And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennMSr
If Verizon wants to Play footsie with Samsung instead of getting 4G phones from HTC and Motorola then Apple should cut them off and open the iPhone up to ever other carrier in Verizon's coverage area. If they thought competing with AT&T for 2 years put stress on the bottom line, just wait until they are the only carrier to not carry the iPhone. It's one thing to heavily advertise the competition over the iPhone but to publicly bite the hand that feeds you is STUPID!! Their contention that it would hinder their 4G deployment is ludicrous Samsung is not the only manufacturer of 4G devices. But they are the only manufacture to blatantly copy the look and feel of iDevices and as Apple contends, they don't mind the competition but they want to compete with another's innovation not their own design and look and feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu
Verizon is fighting for survival. Pity.
You guys are silly and biased. First I don't recall hearing of Verizon taking losses in any recent quarters. In fact they're doing well. There's one Apple troll down . That aside why would they lock Verizon users out of an upgrade path? You think spite is a solid basis for doing business? It's not. Doing any of these things would be like telling all of these people it's a choice between Verizon and the iphone. Your own opinions on which way such a decision should go don't matter, because it's not a choice they should have to make.
If you look at the original iphone, Apple was also in negotiations with Verizon, but they couldn't agree on terms. It wasn't a case of AT&T being better. They were simply willing to agree to Apple's terms.
If you go to the Verizon site and click through to phones, the rollover image used to advertise smart phones is a Samsung phone. They probably sell quite a few so it's understandable that this puts them in a bad position right now.
I've never been pro-Mueller, but true that I never had an issue with him when he first got on my radar. After a few months reading his blogs, comparing him with other sources, paying closer attention to all his posts and doing some add'l research, I have a completely different view of him. Do some research yourself if you still believe he's not working on Microsoft's behalf, and now has the appearance of adding Apple as a client.
Start with an easy Google search: Florian Mueller Microsoft client
Then just follow-up from there.
Oh give me a break. Not more than 5 weeks ago you were using one of Mueller's rants as evidence to prove one of your anti-Apple stances. I did my best to tell you Mueller was almost on the level of DED but you would have none of it... then Mueller did an obvious anti-Google piece about 3 weeks later and you turned on Mueller.
Comments
There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...r-verizon.html
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
As soon as I read Mueller's name I didn't bother to read it... realizing that it was just business for Verizon. It's just the same thing that Apple and Samsung are doing/would do if and when injunctions against their products are enforced. Nobody likes to have a big percentage of their business removed (and, as another point... I doubt this will affect the Verizon/Apple relationship... it would hurt Apple to stop selling on Verizon... and make Apple look stupid).
Declaration of war... pfffftt
Verizon wants control of handsets that they sell. Samsung allows carriers complete control of their handsets. Apple doesn't. So the reason is obvious. Verizon (and other carriers) are afraid of Apple. Apple started the concept that cellphones' features and software are not to be controlled by carriers, but by the maker (Apple). This scarred the US carriers. Luckily for them, Android came and brought control back to the carriers. So in this situation, it's in the best interest of Verizon to support Samsung as Samsung continue to allow Verizon to molest and rape their phones, while Apple don't.
Rape is a violent sexual assult on another person. Molestation carries the idea of sexual assult on a child and pedophilia. This is an intellectual property dispute. The two have nothing to do with each other.
This forum is amazing... and worse than 9/11 conspiracy theory...
Apple buys Samsung, Apple will make better TV, Verizon won´t get the new iPhone...
You all guys are incredibly blind...
GOD.......
This forum is amazing... and worse than 9/11 conspiracy theory...
Apple buys Samsung, Apple will make better TV, Verizon won´t get the new iPhone...
You all guys are incredibly blind...
The amazing thing is that you're reading those comments at face value and actually taking the trolls seriously.
There is one huge problem with this statement. Verizon requesting the right to insert a brief of any kind into this suit means they have to take one side or the other. This is a case of Apple vs Samsung, so they have to be on one side or the other, unless they were considered a hostile witness. In this case, they desire to input their 2 cents. So it is against Apple! Simple.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
Why would oracle want to shut down android. (I think thats what you mean Android is an OS and Droid is a line of phones released on Verizon's network.) Their is no gain in oracle getting android stopped. If anything they would want it to be as successful as possible. They want royalties not to shut it down. Only apple and Microsoft stand to really lose by android OS being more powerful.
Read this: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_of_java.html
So you think Samsung put them up to this? Don't think so. They definitely have vested interest to act on their own volition. The Galaxy line is their second best-selling phone. They do not want to see it banned.
No, you missed my point completely. I think they came out in support of Samsung on their own but in a way that made no comment on the merits of Apple's IP infringement suit and leaving open plenty of room for Apple's attorney's. I think they played both sides beautifully.
Further, I can't see anything I wrote that would imply that I thought "Samsung out them up to this." Are you sure you were responding to the correct post?
Such easy words to spew. Yet they do more to diminish the utterer's credibility than that of the target.
Then please describe how a hit on Verizon's business is relevant to intellectual property infringement involving two other companies.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
It's all about being selfish and only looking out for one's self or institution that's a reason the world is in the financial straits it's in today. No one cares about anyone else, just how it benefits them or their business. We need to bring back that Union mentality of the 20th century where if the maintenance people had a valid grievance and went on strike the Machinists, Teamsters, and Guild workers wouldn't cross the picket lines until their Union Brothers were heard. Now if Apple infringed on a Verizon Patent how would they feel if Samsung backed Apple in ripping off Verizon. Labor Unions were formed originally to combat the selfish attitudes of owners and management now that they have been neutered by governments selfishness and greed is again the Mantra of the Corporate World.
As was stated earlier Verizon should have played Switzerland and remained neutral. Apple has spent years and Million of $ developing a very friendly user interface and to have a company so blatantly mimic the look and feel should be unconscionable. It not even causing a twinge of guilt brings into being the integrity of the infringing company. Segments of the Asian Theater are notorious for cloning another designers IP and then selling it on the world market to the detriment of the original designers product (Clothes, Appliances, Automobiles, Cosmetics, etc). And for these agencies (ITC,FTC) to take over a year to hear and act on these time sensitive issues is also a travesty by the time the case is heard new products have been introduced and the issues at complaint are already outdated. It's like in the time of war bringing the firing on a particular target before congress for approval before pressing the fire button.
I've never believed that Apple is trying to stifle Samsung from fear of competition... I've always believed that Samsung betrayed Apple's trust at some point (ie. used prior knowledge for their own products etc.) but Apple has no direct proof to take to court so they are going after Samsung in any way possible.
I realize that Apple is going after others as well but it seems that Samsung is always being hit the hardest.
Yes, Samsung is being hit the hardest. And the Galaxy II numbers are really impressive. They have sold 10M units in less than 6 months, with most of the sales outside of US.
There wasn't much time left if they wanted their points considered. The next hearing is October 13th.
As expected Florian Mueller considers anything not supporting Apple as an attack, leaving little doubt IMHO that Apple is one his clients. He's certainly in over-the-top bulldog mode.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...r-verizon.html
"This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market."
Mueller is pissed that Google abuses FOSS with their "open" stance which they use as marketing bulls*t, part of which probably also involves paying people to make posts like the posts you make in attempt to discredit ANYTHING he says on various tech sites and blogs, like this one.
Mueller is pissed that Google abuses FOSS with their "open" stance which they use as marketing bulls*t, part of which involves paying people to make posts like yours in attempt to discredit ANYTHING he says.
Gatorguy was pro Mueller when it appeared that he was against Apple (Motorola/HTC vs. Apple)... but that quickly changed...
Gatorguy was pro Mueller when it appeared that he was against Apple (Motorola/HTC vs. Apple)... but that quickly changed...
Mueller was against Apple? I missed that. Love to read it. Any link?
Mueller uncovers some good material. But I do believe his Apple bias is a bit strong, and taints his analysis.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
Apple aren't trying to put Samsung out of business, they just want them to stop copying their stuff, as the German judge said, there is plenty of room to come up with designs that don't infringe on Apple's IP.
Then please describe how a hit on Verizon's business is relevant to intellectual property infringement involving two other companies.
The key here is that Verizon's brief is intended not to take sides on the patent infringement case, but to argue against a preliminary injunction. If you understand that, the rest follows.
Apple aren't trying to put Samsung out of business, they just want them to stop copying their stuff, as the German judge said, there is plenty of room to come up with designs that don't infringe on Apple's IP.
That makes sense, particularly since Apple cannot possibly put Samsung out of business.
I think you missed the point (and this goes for stelligent too...I wish I knew how to quote more than one post). Yes, you're right that by intervening with this brief, Verizon has to end up favoring one side of the case more than the other. But I was talking about their intentions. Verizon is doing this for what they see as bolstering their best interests. They don't care about the success of Samsung's product line beyond the extent that it affects their business. They don't care about Apple claiming infringement of intellectual property. They don't care whether Samsung infringed Apple's intellectual property. What they do care about, though, is that one of their most important hardware suppliers is attempting to put another one of their most important hardware suppliers out of business. It wouldn't matter who sued who or over what. All they see is that this case has the potential to hurt their business, and they're letting the courts know.
You almost have it right (except the part about putting anyone out of business, which is absurd). But you're missing the point that the brief is aimed at stopping the preliminary injunction. Understand that, and you'll understand I'm right again, as usual
Mueller was against Apple? I missed that. Love to read it. Any link?
Mueller uncovers some good material. But I do believe his Apple bias is a bit strong, and taints his analysis.
I've never been pro-Mueller, but true that I never had an issue with him when he first got on my radar. After a few months reading his blogs, comparing him with other sources, paying closer attention to all his posts and doing some add'l research, I have a completely different view of him. Do some research yourself if you still believe he's not working on Microsoft's behalf, and now has the appearance of adding Apple as a client.
Start with an easy Google search: Florian Mueller Microsoft client
Then just follow-up from there.
And in related news Apple announces iPhone no longer available on Verizon...
If Verizon wants to Play footsie with Samsung instead of getting 4G phones from HTC and Motorola then Apple should cut them off and open the iPhone up to ever other carrier in Verizon's coverage area. If they thought competing with AT&T for 2 years put stress on the bottom line, just wait until they are the only carrier to not carry the iPhone. It's one thing to heavily advertise the competition over the iPhone but to publicly bite the hand that feeds you is STUPID!! Their contention that it would hinder their 4G deployment is ludicrous Samsung is not the only manufacturer of 4G devices. But they are the only manufacture to blatantly copy the look and feel of iDevices and as Apple contends, they don't mind the competition but they want to compete with another's innovation not their own design and look and feel.
Verizon is fighting for survival. Pity.
You guys are silly and biased. First I don't recall hearing of Verizon taking losses in any recent quarters. In fact they're doing well. There's one Apple troll down
If you look at the original iphone, Apple was also in negotiations with Verizon, but they couldn't agree on terms. It wasn't a case of AT&T being better. They were simply willing to agree to Apple's terms.
If you go to the Verizon site and click through to phones, the rollover image used to advertise smart phones is a Samsung phone. They probably sell quite a few so it's understandable that this puts them in a bad position right now.
I've never been pro-Mueller, but true that I never had an issue with him when he first got on my radar. After a few months reading his blogs, comparing him with other sources, paying closer attention to all his posts and doing some add'l research, I have a completely different view of him. Do some research yourself if you still believe he's not working on Microsoft's behalf, and now has the appearance of adding Apple as a client.
Start with an easy Google search: Florian Mueller Microsoft client
Then just follow-up from there.
Oh give me a break. Not more than 5 weeks ago you were using one of Mueller's rants as evidence to prove one of your anti-Apple stances. I did my best to tell you Mueller was almost on the level of DED but you would have none of it... then Mueller did an obvious anti-Google piece about 3 weeks later and you turned on Mueller.