Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
Apple trolls instead of innovates? Then why are the entire PC and smart phone markets going out of their way to slavishly copy everything Apple does?
Is there a reason you're responding to 1 post trolls?
Allowing their content to stand unchallenged seems to outside readers to be acceptance of what they say. I wouldn't want that myself, and it's evident others don't, either.
It'd be the same as a single post account coming here and gushing about some faulty product from an untrustworthy company. Someone sees that uncontested, buys the product, gets burned, and never comes back to the site.
If the record of an investigation lacks evidence sufficient to support a RAND-based
affirmative defense (e.g., equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver, etc.), under what
circumstances (if any) should a RAND obligation nonetheless preclude issuance of an
exclusion order?
Does the mere existence of a RAND obligation preclude issuance of an exclusion
order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license to a named respondent in a
Commission investigation on a RAND obligated patent be able to obtain an exclusion
order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license on a RAND obligated patent
to some entity (regardless of whether that entity is a named respondent in a
Commission investigation) be able to obtain an exclusion order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to negotiate a license on RAND terms with a
named respondent in a Commission investigation be precluded from obtaining an
exclusion order?
These are interesting questions that should be discussed carefully. But I would say that, in general, a RAND-encumbered patent owner should not be able to seek exclusion orders until they've already exhausted all reasonable avenues of bargaining in good faith for a RAND license agreement.
Quote:
Should a patent owner who has offered a RAND license that the named respondent in
a Commission investigation has rejected be precluded from obtaining an exclusion
order?
In this case, yes, an exclusion order should be an available recourse for the owner of a RAND-encumbered patent whose good faith offer was truly made in compliance with RAND terms but that offer was rejected.
But does the evidence show that this course of events actually happened in this particular case?
Did Motorola actually make an offer to Apple that fit the definition of RAND? Did Apple actually refuse to accept such an offer?
Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
Apple doesn't actually fit the definition of "patent troll."
As for innovation, what more do you want from Apple? iPhone, iPad, App Store, Retina Macs (never mind that, how about Retina in general), etc., just to name a few. Apple's been doing nothing but turning entire industries inside-out for the past 5 years, if not more. It wasn't Samsung or HTC or Microsoft on stage at those keynotes in June 2007 and January 2010. There's only so much "new" Apple or anyone can do every year. If you have cause to complain about innovation when it comes to Apple, I shudder to think how much lower your opinion would be of the also-rans: Microsoft (especially Microsoft), Acer, Lenovo, Dell, and the Android OEMs . . . everyone who is holding the industry back and/or constantly looking to Apple to light the way forward.
Apple spoils us, no question about it. Everyone else is perpetually asleep at the wheel, doing little more than hardware spec bumps off Apple's original efforts while half-assing even the basics of the software that's supposed to run on them.
As for litigation, this is nothing new. Apple has always been extremely litigious. It's neither costly, nor do consumers really care about it.
Apple has a LONG history of this sort of litigation, FROM DAY 1. The purpose of which is just another way to help them differentiate themselves from everyone else. Apple's litigious behaviour is part and parcel of their policy to litigate rather than license. It has always been this way, ever since the early days of Apple. And if you're an enthusiastic Apple-user (and a relieved non-MS user) then you can thank you're lucky stars that Apple behaved this way.
This is a part of Apple's history. There is much, much more to Apple's litigation strategy than mere dollars and cents and the assumption that they're just interested in acting like jerks or "bullies."
So one judge (Posner) says that banning a Motorola device would be "catastrophic and hurtful" to users in denying and dismissing both company's lawsuits. Now the ITC might possibly ban Apple products and that would not be catastrophic and hurtful to users? Is that about it?
Apple doesn't actually fit the definition of "patent troll."
Retina Macs (never mind that, how about Retina in general)
Actually, Samsung had a phone with a retina class display a full year before the iP4, in the Jet S8000. So Apple did not invent 'retina' or innovate it's introduction. I certainly give Apple credit for marketing the idea and making a big deal out of it. Samsung certainly missed the opportunity there.
IBM were way ahead of Apple with the idea and introduced high ppi monitors for image critical applications in 2001.
Actually, Samsung had a phone with a retina class display a full year before the iP4, in the Jet S8000. So Apple did not invent 'retina' or innovate it's introduction. I certainly give Apple credit for marketing the idea and making a big deal out of it. Samsung certainly missed the opportunity there.
IBM were way ahead of Apple with the idea and introduced high ppi monitors for image critical applications in 2001.
They did and, apart from having a high resolution display, it was your typically plasticky, rubbish bit of phone from Samsung.
Techradar had the following to say about:
"Poor internet browser"
"TouchWiz interface lets down"
"slightly cheap feel"
"laggy interface at times"
"it feels a little lightweight and, dare we say it, cheap in the hand."
"Samsung is still stuck in Division 2 when it comes to the touchscreen game"
"when you receive a text message or missed call on the home screen, it's nigh on impossible to press the 'view' button without missing a couple of times"
"when trying to scroll through names in the contacts menu, even though Samsung has provided a handle to drag through the different letters, we couldn't accurately hold this even after extended use, and was a real irritation"
"there are other points where the processor seems to have up and left, leaving its wheezing understudy from an old Samsung D600 to take over"
I could go on, but you get the picture.
The mere fact that the average person hasn't even heard of this phone tells you all you need to know about it.
1) This lawsuit was filed before Google gained ownership.
2) Apple is the big bully when it comes to patent lawsuits, not Motorola
Apple has plenty of money in the bank. The judge surely knows this. He also, likely knows, Apple is prepared to waste a lot of it in lawsuits. (Steve talked about this in his book.)
Judges don't like companies wasting their time with boring (patent) lawsuits just because they can. Wake up!! Apple is the one to hate on, not Motorola.
Motorola is having issues making money. Why bother them? If iProducts are so much better, what is Apple so worried about?
They did and, apart from having a high resolution display, it was your typically plasticky, rubbish bit of phone from Samsung.
Techradar had the following to say about:
"Poor internet browser"
"TouchWiz interface lets down"
"slightly cheap feel"
"laggy interface at times"
"it feels a little lightweight and, dare we say it, cheap in the hand."
"Samsung is still stuck in Division 2 when it comes to the touchscreen game"
"when you receive a text message or missed call on the home screen, it's nigh on impossible to press the 'view' button without missing a couple of times"
"when trying to scroll through names in the contacts menu, even though Samsung has provided a handle to drag through the different letters, we couldn't accurately hold this even after extended use, and was a real irritation"
"there are other points where the processor seems to have up and left, leaving its wheezing understudy from an old Samsung D600 to take over"
I could go on, but you get the picture.
The mere fact that the average person hasn't even heard of this phone tells you all you need to know about it.
...and what does any of this have to do with the fact that Apple did NOT invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality???
1) This lawsuit was filed before Google gained ownership.
2) Apple is the big bully when it comes to patent lawsuits, not Motorola
Apple has plenty of money in the bank. The judge surely knows this. He also, likely knows, Apple is prepared to waste a lot of it in lawsuits. (Steve talked about this in his book.)
Judges don't like companies wasting their time with boring (patent) lawsuits just because they can. Wake up!! Apple is the one to hate on, not Motorola.
Motorola is having issues making money. Why bother them? If iProducts are so much better, what is Apple so worried about?
Scott
1. Defending your intellectual property is not bullying, and any company is well within their rights to do it.
2. Funds in the bank are only an advantage when defending yourself against legal action, as recognition of 'vexatious litigation' by legal systems around the world actually prevents what you claim is occurring.
"Motorola is having issues making moneyWhy bother them?"
What kind of a statement is this?
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your HDTV because he only has an old CRT one, do you just forget about it?
(By the way, Scott, you don't need to sign your name at the end of your post. It's right there in your username on the left.)
Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
No, no. Don't you know the rules of trolling on these forums? OK, quick tutorial, since you're new...
You're NEVER supposed to claim that Apple innovates, not even in the past tense. You must accuse Apple of copying others. Always dig up picturez of Samsung's digital photo frame or LG Prada or if you're a pro, you can post picturez of cornerz.
No, no. Don't you know the rules of trolling on these forums? OK, quick tutorial, since you're new...
You're NEVER supposed to claim that Apple innovates, not even in the past tense. You must accuse Apple of copying others. Always dig up picturez of Samsung's digital photo frame or LG Prada or if you're a pro, you can post picturez of cornerz.
Frickin' noob trolls.
Getting real sick of edumacating them, aren't you? ;-)
Allowing their content to stand unchallenged seems to outside readers to be acceptance of what they say. I wouldn't want that myself, and it's evident others don't, either.
It'd be the same as a single post account coming here and gushing about some faulty product from an untrustworthy company. Someone sees that uncontested, buys the product, gets burned, and never comes back to the site.
If it was an attention-starved troll like ZZZ, I'd ignore them, but 1 post trolls seem like they registered to post, possibly never to be seen again.
I really look for the posts that sound like they were professionally written by "social media experts" who are paid by companies to go online (e.g. register on forums like these or otherwise use social media) to post insincere stories about how they used to be Apple fans until Samsung came out with <insert new product here> and then they sold their iPhone yada yada. The stories always follow that same formula. It sounds fabricated. Remember the video of the "WAKE UP" flash mob that some dude supposedly happened to film because he bought some new microphone for his iPhone and therefore just happened to be near the Apple Store to film the whole thing and post it on YouTube? That's the level of insincereity and social media manipulation I'm talking about. Paid shills are out there, and I believe they have posted on these forums before, and I usually call it out if I think a post fits that. They tend to be recently registered accounts with just 1 or 2 posts. And then you never heard from them again.
Did Apple claim to invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality?
Not, but some funny people around here claim Apple invented Retina display (and Retina in general - funny, that, I was pretty confident Retina came from mother Nature, or some deity).
Which is what previous poster was replying to.
For someone who is Apple user but not an Apple fan, it is really amusing to read what some people around here are trying to sell as Apple's inventions. Masterful implementation of already available technologies, yes. But inventions...
Comments
Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
Apple trolls instead of innovates? Then why are the entire PC and smart phone markets going out of their way to slavishly copy everything Apple does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple trolls instead of innovates? Then why are the entire PC and smart phone markets going out of their way to slavishly copy everything Apple does?
Is there a reason you're responding to 1 post trolls?
Baby trolls need nourishment. Lol
Allowing their content to stand unchallenged seems to outside readers to be acceptance of what they say. I wouldn't want that myself, and it's evident others don't, either.
It'd be the same as a single post account coming here and gushing about some faulty product from an untrustworthy company. Someone sees that uncontested, buys the product, gets burned, and never comes back to the site.
Quote:
If the record of an investigation lacks evidence sufficient to support a RAND-based
affirmative defense (e.g., equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver, etc.), under what
circumstances (if any) should a RAND obligation nonetheless preclude issuance of an
exclusion order?
Does the mere existence of a RAND obligation preclude issuance of an exclusion
order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license to a named respondent in a
Commission investigation on a RAND obligated patent be able to obtain an exclusion
order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to offer a license on a RAND obligated patent
to some entity (regardless of whether that entity is a named respondent in a
Commission investigation) be able to obtain an exclusion order?
Should a patent owner that has refused to negotiate a license on RAND terms with a
named respondent in a Commission investigation be precluded from obtaining an
exclusion order?
These are interesting questions that should be discussed carefully. But I would say that, in general, a RAND-encumbered patent owner should not be able to seek exclusion orders until they've already exhausted all reasonable avenues of bargaining in good faith for a RAND license agreement.
Quote:
Should a patent owner who has offered a RAND license that the named respondent in
a Commission investigation has rejected be precluded from obtaining an exclusion
order?
In this case, yes, an exclusion order should be an available recourse for the owner of a RAND-encumbered patent whose good faith offer was truly made in compliance with RAND terms but that offer was rejected.
But does the evidence show that this course of events actually happened in this particular case?
Did Motorola actually make an offer to Apple that fit the definition of RAND? Did Apple actually refuse to accept such an offer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ingua2
Silly little guy. It's because Apple started this whole patent trolling initiative once competition caught up. If anyone is to blame for the state of rampart patent litigation cases and idiotic patent fillings it's Apple. You could throw SCO and Oracle into the mix, but currently Apple is the king of patent trolling in the tech industry.
I don't blame any other company one bit for sticking it back to Apple. The day they decided to troll instead of innovate was the day they lost my respect. I figured with Jobs' ego out of the way, Apple could get back to innovation, but that's clearly not the case with Timmy on board who has yet to reign in the vampirous lawyers.
Apple doesn't actually fit the definition of "patent troll."
As for innovation, what more do you want from Apple? iPhone, iPad, App Store, Retina Macs (never mind that, how about Retina in general), etc., just to name a few. Apple's been doing nothing but turning entire industries inside-out for the past 5 years, if not more. It wasn't Samsung or HTC or Microsoft on stage at those keynotes in June 2007 and January 2010. There's only so much "new" Apple or anyone can do every year. If you have cause to complain about innovation when it comes to Apple, I shudder to think how much lower your opinion would be of the also-rans: Microsoft (especially Microsoft), Acer, Lenovo, Dell, and the Android OEMs . . . everyone who is holding the industry back and/or constantly looking to Apple to light the way forward.
Apple spoils us, no question about it. Everyone else is perpetually asleep at the wheel, doing little more than hardware spec bumps off Apple's original efforts while half-assing even the basics of the software that's supposed to run on them.
As for litigation, this is nothing new. Apple has always been extremely litigious. It's neither costly, nor do consumers really care about it.
Apple has a LONG history of this sort of litigation, FROM DAY 1. The purpose of which is just another way to help them differentiate themselves from everyone else. Apple's litigious behaviour is part and parcel of their policy to litigate rather than license. It has always been this way, ever since the early days of Apple. And if you're an enthusiastic Apple-user (and a relieved non-MS user) then you can thank you're lucky stars that Apple behaved this way.
This is a part of Apple's history. There is much, much more to Apple's litigation strategy than mere dollars and cents and the assumption that they're just interested in acting like jerks or "bullies."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405411,00.asp
It's call the Goose and Gander...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
So one judge (Posner) says that banning a Motorola device would be "catastrophic and hurtful" to users in denying and dismissing both company's lawsuits. Now the ITC might possibly ban Apple products and that would not be catastrophic and hurtful to users? Is that about it?
Ikrupp,
It's call the Goose and Gander
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405411,00.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple doesn't actually fit the definition of "patent troll."
Retina Macs (never mind that, how about Retina in general)
Actually, Samsung had a phone with a retina class display a full year before the iP4, in the Jet S8000. So Apple did not invent 'retina' or innovate it's introduction. I certainly give Apple credit for marketing the idea and making a big deal out of it. Samsung certainly missed the opportunity there.
IBM were way ahead of Apple with the idea and introduced high ppi monitors for image critical applications in 2001.
Apparently someone should have told Apple that they shouldn't be holding onto the bomb when going 'thermonuclear'....
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Actually, Samsung had a phone with a retina class display a full year before the iP4, in the Jet S8000. So Apple did not invent 'retina' or innovate it's introduction. I certainly give Apple credit for marketing the idea and making a big deal out of it. Samsung certainly missed the opportunity there.
IBM were way ahead of Apple with the idea and introduced high ppi monitors for image critical applications in 2001.
They did and, apart from having a high resolution display, it was your typically plasticky, rubbish bit of phone from Samsung.
Techradar had the following to say about:
"Poor internet browser"
"TouchWiz interface lets down"
"slightly cheap feel"
"laggy interface at times"
"it feels a little lightweight and, dare we say it, cheap in the hand."
"Samsung is still stuck in Division 2 when it comes to the touchscreen game"
"when you receive a text message or missed call on the home screen, it's nigh on impossible to press the 'view' button without missing a couple of times"
"when trying to scroll through names in the contacts menu, even though Samsung has provided a handle to drag through the different letters, we couldn't accurately hold this even after extended use, and was a real irritation"
"there are other points where the processor seems to have up and left, leaving its wheezing understudy from an old Samsung D600 to take over"
I could go on, but you get the picture.
The mere fact that the average person hasn't even heard of this phone tells you all you need to know about it.
1) This lawsuit was filed before Google gained ownership.
2) Apple is the big bully when it comes to patent lawsuits, not Motorola
Apple has plenty of money in the bank. The judge surely knows this. He also, likely knows, Apple is prepared to waste a lot of it in lawsuits. (Steve talked about this in his book.)
Judges don't like companies wasting their time with boring (patent) lawsuits just because they can. Wake up!! Apple is the one to hate on, not Motorola.
Motorola is having issues making money. Why bother them? If iProducts are so much better, what is Apple so worried about?
Scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
They did and, apart from having a high resolution display, it was your typically plasticky, rubbish bit of phone from Samsung.
Techradar had the following to say about:
"Poor internet browser"
"TouchWiz interface lets down"
"slightly cheap feel"
"laggy interface at times"
"it feels a little lightweight and, dare we say it, cheap in the hand."
"Samsung is still stuck in Division 2 when it comes to the touchscreen game"
"when you receive a text message or missed call on the home screen, it's nigh on impossible to press the 'view' button without missing a couple of times"
"when trying to scroll through names in the contacts menu, even though Samsung has provided a handle to drag through the different letters, we couldn't accurately hold this even after extended use, and was a real irritation"
"there are other points where the processor seems to have up and left, leaving its wheezing understudy from an old Samsung D600 to take over"
I could go on, but you get the picture.
The mere fact that the average person hasn't even heard of this phone tells you all you need to know about it.
...and what does any of this have to do with the fact that Apple did NOT invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality???
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
...and what does any of this have to do with the fact that Apple did NOT invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality???
Did Apple claim to invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality?
1) This lawsuit was filed before Google gained ownership.
2) Apple is the big bully when it comes to patent lawsuits, not Motorola
Apple has plenty of money in the bank. The judge surely knows this. He also, likely knows, Apple is prepared to waste a lot of it in lawsuits. (Steve talked about this in his book.)
Judges don't like companies wasting their time with boring (patent) lawsuits just because they can. Wake up!! Apple is the one to hate on, not Motorola.
Motorola is having issues making money. Why bother them? If iProducts are so much better, what is Apple so worried about?
Scott
1. Defending your intellectual property is not bullying, and any company is well within their rights to do it.
2. Funds in the bank are only an advantage when defending yourself against legal action, as recognition of 'vexatious litigation' by legal systems around the world actually prevents what you claim is occurring.
"Motorola is having issues making money Why bother them?"
What kind of a statement is this?
If somebody breaks into your house and steals your HDTV because he only has an old CRT one, do you just forget about it?
(By the way, Scott, you don't need to sign your name at the end of your post. It's right there in your username on the left.)Sincerest,
GTR
No, no. Don't you know the rules of trolling on these forums? OK, quick tutorial, since you're new...
You're NEVER supposed to claim that Apple innovates, not even in the past tense. You must accuse Apple of copying others. Always dig up picturez of Samsung's digital photo frame or LG Prada or if you're a pro, you can post picturez of cornerz.
Frickin' noob trolls.
Getting real sick of edumacating them, aren't you? ;-)
If it was an attention-starved troll like ZZZ, I'd ignore them, but 1 post trolls seem like they registered to post, possibly never to be seen again.
I really look for the posts that sound like they were professionally written by "social media experts" who are paid by companies to go online (e.g. register on forums like these or otherwise use social media) to post insincere stories about how they used to be Apple fans until Samsung came out with <insert new product here> and then they sold their iPhone yada yada. The stories always follow that same formula. It sounds fabricated. Remember the video of the "WAKE UP" flash mob that some dude supposedly happened to film because he bought some new microphone for his iPhone and therefore just happened to be near the Apple Store to film the whole thing and post it on YouTube? That's the level of insincereity and social media manipulation I'm talking about. Paid shills are out there, and I believe they have posted on these forums before, and I usually call it out if I think a post fits that. They tend to be recently registered accounts with just 1 or 2 posts. And then you never heard from them again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Did Apple claim to invent the idea of increasing pixel density for better viewing quality?
Not, but some funny people around here claim Apple invented Retina display (and Retina in general - funny, that, I was pretty confident Retina came from mother Nature, or some deity).
Which is what previous poster was replying to.
For someone who is Apple user but not an Apple fan, it is really amusing to read what some people around here are trying to sell as Apple's inventions. Masterful implementation of already available technologies, yes. But inventions...