Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.
German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.
Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.
Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.
I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.
I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.
FRAND Patents.
The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.
Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.
The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.
The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.
Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.
The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.
That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.
Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.
$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.
Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )
I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things
Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.
German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.
Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.
Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.
I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.
I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.
eh...I wish they'd both come to an understanding...
Also I wouldn't rank the cases so clearly as to gain a full point to any company.
That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.
Otherwise, they're screwed.
that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.
that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.
Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.
And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.
Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.
$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.
Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )
I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things
You're missing something. Since 1997, there have been 2 two-for-one stock splits:
So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.
Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.
I disagree. Apple is not against competition ..... but they are wary of spending their resources (time and money) to develop superior devices, only to watch lazy companies steal their designs and ideas under the guise of competition. If others want to compete ... do so .... but use your own ideas .... no?
We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@
on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)
on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)
that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))
Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.
And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.
First a life lesson...you cannot say a subjective opinion is true. While I will openly agree that there are things iOS handles better than Android OS, I personally (me, my opinion) feel that Android is the better more complete experience. App selection is paltry in comparison, sure, but the app selection is still grand.
Secondly, don't count Google out yet. The case isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Thirdly, Apple hasn't won anything official yet either. Except a design patent case in one jurisdiction.
You are making full assumptions on the future of Android based on cases that are murky as hell.
We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@
on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)
on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)
that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))
Hey guy...how are you?
I was wondering...could you tell me how these look a like?
I'll be waiting.
OH icons? not Apple's invention.
OH touchscreen? again, not Apple's invention
A centralized store for apps? Great idea by Apple but Apple cannot own a type of store.
Also Android is hardly unusable...but something tells me you've only used Android for at most 5 minutes and made a judgement based on something like the Motorola backflip or whatever.
Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.
Actually I would have thought that the injunction would have an effect. Even if they are available online, not being able to display them in stores alongside competitors is likely to impact overall sales negatively.
Well, we all know about the only product Apple's been successful with an injunction against, but how many times has AI run a picture that shows both sides?:
Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.
Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.
How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.
My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.
While some people will love and hate companies in the same way sports fans do favored and and rival teams, intelligent people don't.
What really bothers people is (and here's where Microsoft, Google, et al come in) when a company *doesn't* buy or license another company's IP and then improves it and call it their own.
Depending on just when you look at Apple in 1997, the company had a cash position of about US$1.2B, Microsoft about US$3.7B. Apple was hardly near bankruptcy but then, why upset one of the common myths. \
Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.
How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.
So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.
Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.
Nope again.
When the stock is split the historic price is multiplied by the inverse of the split. This makes price comparisons, charting, financials, etc. easier to deal with. So his original post is correct. Although he states the price in August of 97 was $5 (or whatever he said,) and although it is listed as $5 (or whatever) in historical prices and charts, the actual price at the time was (2*2=4) 4 times that amount or $20 (a little under $20 actually.)
Well, we all know about the only product Apple's been successful with an injunction against, but how many times has AI run a picture that shows both sides?:
Other allegedly-infringing devices include:
Many of those are very old looking. The iPhone is clearly better.
Comments
Well, this is my understanding.
Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.
German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.
Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.
Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.
I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.
I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.
FRAND Patents.
The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.
Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.
The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.
FRAND Patents.
The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.
Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.
The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.
That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.
Otherwise, they're screwed.
Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.
$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.
Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )
I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things
Did you forget the stock splits over that time?
Well, this is my understanding.
Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.
German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.
Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.
Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.
I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.
I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.
eh...I wish they'd both come to an understanding...
Also I wouldn't rank the cases so clearly as to gain a full point to any company.
That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.
Otherwise, they're screwed.
that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.
that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.
Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.
And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.
Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.
$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.
Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )
I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things
You're missing something. Since 1997, there have been 2 two-for-one stock splits:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=2
So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.
Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.
I disagree. Apple is not against competition ..... but they are wary of spending their resources (time and money) to develop superior devices, only to watch lazy companies steal their designs and ideas under the guise of competition. If others want to compete ... do so .... but use your own ideas .... no?
We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@
on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)
on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)
that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))
Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.
And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.
First a life lesson...you cannot say a subjective opinion is true. While I will openly agree that there are things iOS handles better than Android OS, I personally (me, my opinion) feel that Android is the better more complete experience. App selection is paltry in comparison, sure, but the app selection is still grand.
Secondly, don't count Google out yet. The case isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Thirdly, Apple hasn't won anything official yet either. Except a design patent case in one jurisdiction.
You are making full assumptions on the future of Android based on cases that are murky as hell.
We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@
on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)
on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)
that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))
Hey guy...how are you?
I was wondering...could you tell me how these look a like?
I'll be waiting.
OH icons? not Apple's invention.
OH touchscreen? again, not Apple's invention
A centralized store for apps? Great idea by Apple but Apple cannot own a type of store.
Also Android is hardly unusable...but something tells me you've only used Android for at most 5 minutes and made a judgement based on something like the Motorola backflip or whatever.
Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.
Actually I would have thought that the injunction would have an effect. Even if they are available online, not being able to display them in stores alongside competitors is likely to impact overall sales negatively.
While we're waiting, let's remember some of the other phones Apple included in their suit.
According to FOSS Patents, the complete list is:
What do they look like?
Well, we all know about the only product Apple's been successful with an injunction against, but how many times has AI run a picture that shows both sides?:
Other allegedly-infringing devices include:
slavish I say...slavish.
Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.
Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.
How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.
My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.
While some people will love and hate companies in the same way sports fans do favored and and rival teams, intelligent people don't.
What really bothers people is (and here's where Microsoft, Google, et al come in) when a company *doesn't* buy or license another company's IP and then improves it and call it their own.
Depending on just when you look at Apple in 1997, the company had a cash position of about US$1.2B, Microsoft about US$3.7B. Apple was hardly near bankruptcy but then, why upset one of the common myths.
@IQatEdo
I was trying to find old financial statements and was unsuccessful. Where does one go to get that info?
Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.
How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.
Presumably not just zeros.
Did you forget the stock splits over that time?
He didn't
You're missing something. Since 1997, there have been 2 two-for-one stock splits:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=2
So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.
Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.
Nope again.
When the stock is split the historic price is multiplied by the inverse of the split. This makes price comparisons, charting, financials, etc. easier to deal with. So his original post is correct. Although he states the price in August of 97 was $5 (or whatever he said,) and although it is listed as $5 (or whatever) in historical prices and charts, the actual price at the time was (2*2=4) 4 times that amount or $20 (a little under $20 actually.)
While we're waiting, let's remember some of the other phones Apple included in their suit.
According to FOSS Patents, the complete list is:
What do they look like?
Well, we all know about the only product Apple's been successful with an injunction against, but how many times has AI run a picture that shows both sides?:
Other allegedly-infringing devices include:
Many of those are very old looking. The iPhone is clearly better.