IMO, all "fans" of consumer products are annoying. I understand fans of sports teams, actors and other performers. but I don't understand being a fan of a lump of metal and plastic.
I understand even less those who are fans of huge multinational corporations.
Then again, I don't understand why people buy logoed clothing, and turn themselves into walking billboards for, say, Tommy Hillfinger or American eagle Outfitters. The message seem to be "I am the type of person who buys things from a particular retail store". Is that a source of pride?
What am I missing here? ISTM that people define themselves by their purchases. I see that as sad, given that it is arbitrary and that it reflects nothing deep or substantial about the person.
ANYBODY can buy a T shirt at the mall. Is the fact that one did so really a source of pride for the purchaser? Do they think that others will look up to them because of it? Do they think more of themselves because of it? Does a purchase of a product really define one's being?
I posted this several days back, but not certain it was here at AI. David Pogue's comments on just what you've mentioned.
“Google is suing the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) over a bid for a new hosted e-mail system which Google claims unfairly benefits Microsoft. The suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on October 29, calls out the DOI for not considering Google Apps in its Request for Quotation (RFQ). The DOI RFQ specified that the DOI was looking for a new, unified e-mail, calendaring and collaboration solution, but limited the acceptable options to Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS) Federal suite only. The contract is worth $49.3 million over five years.” (1)
“Google has sued Froogles.com, charging the rival shopping search engine with trademark infringement. Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, the No. 1 search engine, filed a 68-page complaint against Froogles.com in the Eastern District Court of New York. The complaint alleges that Froogles.com proprietor Richard Wolfe, a New York state resident, illegally traded on Google's famous name and search brand for profit with a "nearly identical" mark. "Upon information and belief, the defendant selected the mark Froogles with full knowledge of Google's prior rights in its Google name and mark," according to the filing. "As between the parties, Google is the senior user of marks that incorporate the formative--Oogle for Internet search services."” (2)
“Google filed a lawsuit against Central Mfg., a company owned by Leo Stoller, a Chicago-based attorney "trademark expert" who has claimed rights for the word "Google," Google Watch has learned. Google's lawsuit, which comes after several years of legal wrangling with Stoller, after Stoller declared bankruptcy, and after Google was granted relief by the courts to pursue litigation, alleges that Stoller and his businesses are falsely claiming trademark rights for the purpose of harassing and attempting to extort money. "Unfortunately, Google's widely-publicized success has attracted the attention of Defedants," Google's 222-page lawsuit reads. "In order to effectuate their fraud, Defendants have prepared and circulated, and continue to circulate, bogus letterhead and other corporate documents supposedly evidencing an entity they variously call 'Google Brand Trademark Licensing,' 'Google Licensning [sic]' and 'Google Brand Products and Services,' even though by all indications no such entity exists.” (3)
“If there was ever a question about the absurdity of Intellectual Ventures and the patent protection racket it’s running, the recent news that IV is suing Motorola Mobility, over patents related to Google’s Android OS, settles things once and for all. The one reasonable claim to existence that IV had was that it acted as a patent pool that protected its members from frivolous lawsuits. But this suit puts the lie to even that flimsy facade. Google funds IV, but if it doesn’t agree to pay extra licensing fees, it finds itself the target of a lawsuit, which, let’s not forget, comes from a company with no business model outside collecting patents, receiving tithes from big tech companies, and suing for infringement.” (4) “Google Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block groups it called "rogue online pharmacies" from advertising on its search engine and websites. The move comes as Internet companies continue efforts to prevent fraudsters from preying on their customers, potentially keeping them from doing business with legitimate online operators.
"Rogue pharmacies are bad for our users, for legitimate online pharmacies and for the entire e-commerce industry—so we are going to keep investing time and money to stop these kinds of harmful practices," Google lawyer Michael Zwibelman wrote in a blog post Tuesday. In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Google alleges one individual and 50 unnamed defendants "violated policies and circumvented technological measures" by using its Adwords online-ad program to promote pharmacy and prescription-drug operations without being verified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. In doing so, the defendants broke a contract with the company, Google said.” (5)
“Google filed a lawsuit against Pacific WebWorks and other unnamed defendants for allegedly using the company's name and colorful logo to promote fraudulent work-at-home money-making schemes. "Thousands of people have been tricked into sending payment information and being charged hidden fees by questionable operations," Google said in a blog post on Tuesday. The search engine giant sued Salt Lake City-based Pacific WebWorks, an application service provider and software development firm, in a court in Utah. Pacific WebWorks didn't respond to calls, but on Wednesday put out a statement indicating it was surprised by the lawsuit. "We have always cooperated with Google," said Ken Bell, chief executive of Pacific WebWorks. "As we review this lawsuit with our counsel we find questionable claims that the company will vigorously and responsibly defend."” (6)
“This is an action brought by Motorola Mobility against Apple for Apple’s infringement of Motorola Mobility’s patents. In particular, Motorola Mobility seeks remedies for Apple’s infringement of Motorola Mobility’s U.S. Patents Nos. 5,359,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 5,636,223 (“the ’223 patent”), 6,246,697 (“the ’697 patent”), 6,246,862 (“the ’862 patent”), 6,272,333 (“the ’333 patent”) and 7,751,826 (“the ’826 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).” (7)
“Apple filed its Complaint in this action on October 29, 2010. Defendants’ filed their Answer and Counterclaims on November 9, 2010. Apple’s claims allege that various of Defendants’ products infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (“the ’828 patent”), 7,663,607 (“the ’607 patent”), and 5,379,430 (“the ’430 patent”). See Dkt. #1 (Apple’s Complaint for Patent Infringement) at ¶¶ 7-10. Defendants’ counterclaims allege that various Apple products infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,359,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 5,636,223 (“the ’223 patent”), 6,246,697 (“the ’697 patent”), 6,246,862 (“the ’862 patent”), 7,751,826 (“the ’826 patent”) and 6,272,333 (“the ’333 patent”). See Dkt. #5 (Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims) at ¶¶ 38, 47, 55, 63, 71, and 79. On the same day Apple filed its Complaint in this action, October 29, 2010, Apple filed a Complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation against Defendants. In its ITC Complaint, Apple alleged that Defendants infringe the same three patents that Apple asserted in this Court. See Ex. 1 (Apple’s ITC Complaint, without exhibits) at ¶ 4. Thus, the ’828, ’607, and ’430 patents (collectively the “Apple Asserted Patents”) were asserted against Defendants in both fora. Thereafter, the ITC instituted Investigation Number 337-TA-750, entitled In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, (the “’750 Investigation”), based on Apple’s ITC Complaint. The ITC formally named the same Apple and Motorola entities that are parties to this action as complainant and respondents, respectively. A notice that the ITC has instituted the ’750 Investigation was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2010. See Ex. 2 (Notice of Investigation as Printed in the Federal Register). By publication of notice in the Federal Register, the ITC officially commenced the ’750 Investigation. Similarly, prior to filing its Answer and Counterclaims in this action, on October 6, 2010, Mobility had filed a Complaint with the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation against Apple. Like its allegations in its counterclaims in this action, Mobility’s ITC Complaint alleges that Apple infringes the same six asserted patents in this Court. See Ex. 3 (Mobility’s ITC Complaint, without exhibits) at ¶ 71-76. Thus, the ’317, ’223, ’697, ’862, ’826, and ’333 patents (collectively the “Mobility Asserted Patents”) were asserted against Apple in both fora. The ITC instituted investigation number 337-TA-745, entitled In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devises, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, (the “’745 Investigation”) based on Mobility’s ITC Complaint, formally naming the same Motorola and Apple entities that are parties to this action as complainant and respondent, respectively. A notice of the institution of the ’745 Investigation was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2010, thus officially commencing the ’745 Investigation. See Ex. 4 (Notice of Investigation as Printed in the Federal Register). Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Apple invokes its right to stay the counterclaims filed by Defendants in this action until the date that the determination of the ITC in the ’745 Investigation becomes final. Similarly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Defendants invoke their right to stay the claims filed by Apple in this action until the date that the ITC’s determination in the ’750 Investigation becomes final.” (8)
Point being? I don't see any competitors on there that Google sued unless you consider Froogles (??) one. Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of the post. Was it instead to point out you could only find 5 cases in total of Google suing anyone for any reason over the past dozen years? Two for trademark infringement, which is a necessity (protect it or lose it), two for online fraud, and one against the US government. And none against a competitor.
EDIT: Fair is fair. Even tho you can't find a suit against a tech competitor over IP, you did get past four cases, which was another challenge I put in post 87. You're right and I'm wrong on that one. You got to five. Nice research!
I love Google Maps, use it on my computer, you know, in a browser. But when we were doing the iPhone, we thought, wouldn’t it be great to have maps on the iPhone? And so we called up Google and they’d done a few client apps in Java on some phones and they had an API that we worked with them a little on. And we ended up writing a client app for those APIs. They would provide the back-end service. And the app we were able to write, since we’re pretty reasonable at writing apps, blows away any Google Maps client. Just blows it away. Same set of data coming off the server, but the experience you have using it is unbelievable. It’s way better than the computer. And just in a completely different league than what they’d put on phones before.
THE CRAZY ONES. The Misfits. The Rebels.
The one who made it his mission to put a dent in the universe, not to merely chase the competition down the rabbit hole of "commoditized, cheaper & thinner margins."
It doesn't have to look like the iPhone. It was found to have violated some Apple patents. If you have proof that it didn't, you'd better get in touch with Samsung and Google's legal departments right away.
And Apple didn't invent slide to unlock OR auto correct.
Again, if you can prove that, you'd better get the information to Samung and Google's legal departments. Samsung tried to get the patent thrown out but they weren't able to do so. IIRC, Motorola also tried and failed.
Point being? I don't see any competitors on there that Google sued unless you consider Froogles (??) one. Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of the post. Was it instead to point out you could only find 5 cases in total of Google suing anyone for any reason over the past dozen years? Two for trademark infringement, which is a necessity (protect it or lose it), two for online fraud, and one against the US government. And none against a competitor.
Your original statement was "Google hasn't yet sued anyone". Given that statement, showing a bunch of entities that Google had sued is most certainly relevant. IOW, you were wrong. Again.
Your original statement was "Google hasn't yet sued anyone". Given that statement, showing a bunch of entities that Google had sued is most certainly relevant. IOW, you were wrong. Again.
Yep, acknowledged that quite early on. When I first posted that the intent was a fellow tech player, but I said what I said and I own it. But we're waaay past that JR. Keep up.
As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't posted the bond yet - does anyone have any idea why?
Only because Judge Koh hasn't made a "FINAL" final ruling on a possible stay until the appeals court can look at it. I know it's confusing as heck. Her decision may come later today.
To bring this thread current, when the Appeals court reversed the injunction order on the Galaxy Nexus today it added a footnote. The '604 patent, or Siri unified search, is unlikely to be both valid and infringed by the Nexus. Doesn't mean Apple won't continue trying to convince the court, but the judges at the Appeals level think it's pretty unlikely, finding Apple's explanation at odds with the actual patent claims.
Not sure if this is a good sign for innovation or bad sign for anyone to get inspired from Apple's technology and do something on similar lines.
If you have any interest in why Apple's claims were rebuffed I've attached a link explaining why their unified search patent is not both valid and infringed (perhaps neither) by the Galaxy Nexus.
If you have any interest in why Apple's claims were rebuffed I've attached a link explaining why their unified search patent is not both valid and infringed (perhaps neither) by the Galaxy Nexus.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
IMO, all "fans" of consumer products are annoying. I understand fans of sports teams, actors and other performers. but I don't understand being a fan of a lump of metal and plastic.
I understand even less those who are fans of huge multinational corporations.
Then again, I don't understand why people buy logoed clothing, and turn themselves into walking billboards for, say, Tommy Hillfinger or American eagle Outfitters. The message seem to be "I am the type of person who buys things from a particular retail store". Is that a source of pride?
What am I missing here? ISTM that people define themselves by their purchases. I see that as sad, given that it is arbitrary and that it reflects nothing deep or substantial about the person.
ANYBODY can buy a T shirt at the mall. Is the fact that one did so really a source of pride for the purchaser? Do they think that others will look up to them because of it? Do they think more of themselves because of it? Does a purchase of a product really define one's being?
I posted this several days back, but not certain it was here at AI. David Pogue's comments on just what you've mentioned.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/hate-mail-and-the-new-religious-wars-in-tech/
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
IMO, all "fans" of consumer products are annoying.
And what are your thoughts on people who join fan sites... to point out that said fans are annoying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I posted this several days back, but not certain it was here at AI. David Pogue's comments on just what you've mentioned.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/hate-mail-and-the-new-religious-wars-in-tech/
It is a good article. I have already read it, but I'm not certain whether it was because you posted it or because I stumbled upon it.
I wonder if Pogue's viewpoints have affected mine, or whether I liked it due to preexisting confirmation bias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And what are your thoughts on people who join fan sites... to point out that said fans are annoying?
If they join for that reason? Dunno. I never really thought about it.
“Google has sued Froogles.com, charging the rival shopping search engine with trademark infringement.
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, the No. 1 search engine, filed a 68-page complaint against Froogles.com in the Eastern District Court of New York. The complaint alleges that Froogles.com proprietor Richard Wolfe, a New York state resident, illegally traded on Google's famous name and search brand for profit with a "nearly identical" mark.
"Upon information and belief, the defendant selected the mark Froogles with full knowledge of Google's prior rights in its Google name and mark," according to the filing. "As between the parties, Google is the senior user of marks that incorporate the formative--Oogle for Internet search services."” (2)
“Google filed a lawsuit against Central Mfg., a company owned by Leo Stoller, a Chicago-based attorney "trademark expert" who has claimed rights for the word "Google," Google Watch has learned. Google's lawsuit, which comes after several years of legal wrangling with Stoller, after Stoller declared bankruptcy, and after Google was granted relief by the courts to pursue litigation, alleges that Stoller and his businesses are falsely claiming trademark rights for the purpose of harassing and attempting to extort money. "Unfortunately, Google's widely-publicized success has attracted the attention of Defedants," Google's 222-page lawsuit reads. "In order to effectuate their fraud, Defendants have prepared and circulated, and continue to circulate, bogus letterhead and other corporate documents supposedly evidencing an entity they variously call 'Google Brand Trademark Licensing,' 'Google Licensning [sic]' and 'Google Brand Products and Services,' even though by all indications no such entity exists.” (3)
“If there was ever a question about the absurdity of Intellectual Ventures and the patent protection racket it’s running, the recent news that IV is suing Motorola Mobility, over patents related to Google’s Android OS, settles things once and for all. The one reasonable claim to existence that IV had was that it acted as a patent pool that protected its members from frivolous lawsuits. But this suit puts the lie to even that flimsy facade. Google funds IV, but if it doesn’t agree to pay extra licensing fees, it finds itself the target of a lawsuit, which, let’s not forget, comes from a company with no business model outside collecting patents, receiving tithes from big tech companies, and suing for infringement.” (4)
“Google Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block groups it called "rogue online pharmacies" from advertising on its search engine and websites.
The move comes as Internet companies continue efforts to prevent fraudsters from preying on their customers, potentially keeping them from doing business with legitimate online operators.
"Rogue pharmacies are bad for our users, for legitimate online pharmacies and for the entire e-commerce industry—so we are going to keep investing time and money to stop these kinds of harmful practices," Google lawyer Michael Zwibelman wrote in a blog post Tuesday.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Google alleges one individual and 50 unnamed defendants "violated policies and circumvented technological measures" by using its Adwords online-ad program to promote pharmacy and prescription-drug operations without being verified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. In doing so, the defendants broke a contract with the company, Google said.” (5)
“Google filed a lawsuit against Pacific WebWorks and other unnamed defendants for allegedly using the company's name and colorful logo to promote fraudulent work-at-home money-making schemes. "Thousands of people have been tricked into sending payment information and being charged hidden fees by questionable operations," Google said in a blog post on Tuesday. The search engine giant sued Salt Lake City-based Pacific WebWorks, an application service provider and software development firm, in a court in Utah. Pacific WebWorks didn't respond to calls, but on Wednesday put out a statement indicating it was surprised by the lawsuit. "We have always cooperated with Google," said Ken Bell, chief executive of Pacific WebWorks. "As we review this lawsuit with our counsel we find questionable claims that the company will vigorously and responsibly defend."” (6)
“This is an action brought by Motorola Mobility against Apple for Apple’s infringement of Motorola Mobility’s patents. In particular, Motorola Mobility seeks remedies for Apple’s infringement of Motorola Mobility’s U.S. Patents Nos. 5,359,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 5,636,223 (“the ’223 patent”), 6,246,697 (“the ’697 patent”), 6,246,862 (“the ’862 patent”), 6,272,333 (“the ’333 patent”) and 7,751,826 (“the ’826 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).” (7)
“Apple filed its Complaint in this action on October 29, 2010. Defendants’ filed their Answer and Counterclaims on November 9, 2010. Apple’s claims allege that various of Defendants’ products infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,828 (“the ’828 patent”), 7,663,607 (“the ’607 patent”), and 5,379,430 (“the ’430 patent”). See Dkt. #1 (Apple’s Complaint for Patent Infringement) at ¶¶ 7-10. Defendants’ counterclaims allege that various Apple products infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,359,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 5,636,223 (“the ’223 patent”), 6,246,697 (“the ’697 patent”), 6,246,862 (“the ’862 patent”), 7,751,826 (“the ’826 patent”) and 6,272,333 (“the ’333 patent”). See Dkt. #5 (Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims) at ¶¶ 38, 47, 55, 63, 71, and 79.
On the same day Apple filed its Complaint in this action, October 29, 2010, Apple filed a Complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation against Defendants. In its ITC Complaint, Apple alleged that Defendants infringe the same three patents that Apple asserted in this Court. See Ex. 1 (Apple’s ITC Complaint, without exhibits) at ¶ 4. Thus, the ’828, ’607, and ’430 patents (collectively the “Apple Asserted Patents”) were asserted against Defendants in both fora.
Thereafter, the ITC instituted Investigation Number 337-TA-750, entitled In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices and Related Software, (the “’750 Investigation”), based on Apple’s ITC Complaint. The ITC formally named the same Apple and Motorola entities that are parties to this action as complainant and respondents, respectively. A notice that the ITC has instituted the ’750 Investigation was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2010. See Ex. 2 (Notice of Investigation as Printed in the Federal Register). By publication of notice in the Federal Register, the ITC officially commenced the ’750 Investigation.
Similarly, prior to filing its Answer and Counterclaims in this action, on October 6, 2010, Mobility had filed a Complaint with the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation against Apple. Like its allegations in its counterclaims in this action, Mobility’s ITC Complaint alleges that Apple infringes the same six asserted patents in this Court. See Ex. 3 (Mobility’s ITC Complaint, without exhibits) at ¶ 71-76. Thus, the ’317, ’223, ’697, ’862, ’826, and ’333 patents (collectively the “Mobility Asserted Patents”) were asserted against Apple in both fora.
The ITC instituted investigation number 337-TA-745, entitled In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devises, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, (the “’745 Investigation”) based on Mobility’s ITC Complaint, formally naming the same Motorola and Apple entities that are parties to this action as complainant and respondent, respectively. A notice of the institution of the ’745 Investigation was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2010, thus officially commencing the ’745 Investigation. See Ex. 4 (Notice of Investigation as Printed in the Federal Register).
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Apple invokes its right to stay the counterclaims filed by Defendants in this action until the date that the determination of the ITC in the ’745 Investigation becomes final. Similarly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Defendants invoke their right to stay the claims filed by Apple in this action until the date that the ITC’s determination in the ’750 Investigation becomes final.” (8)
1. Mary Jo Foley. Posted November 1, 2010. ZDNet. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/google-sues-us-government-over-hosted-e-mail-bid-against-microsoft/7859
2. Stefanie Olsen. Posted April 19, 2005. CNet. http://news.cnet.com/Google-sues-Froogles.com/2100-1030_3-5676955.html
3. Unattributed. Posted January 24, 2007. eWeek. http://googlewatch.eweek.com/content/google_lawsuits/google_sues_leo_stoller_for_racketeering.html
4. Ben Popper. Posted October 7, 2011. Beta Beat. http://betabeat.com/2011/10/07/google-sues-itself-with-a-little-help-from-intellectual-ventures/
5. Matt Jarzemsky. Posted September 23, 2010. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703860104575507950332558806.html
6. Hibachi Yousuf and Jessica Dickler. Posted December 14, 2009. CNNMoney. http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/08/technology/Google_lawsuit_Pacific_Webworks/index.htm
7. Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc. Case: 1:10-cv-06385 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/06/10 http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2010cv06385/248240/1/0.pdf?1286402574
8. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. And Motorola Mobility Inc.
Point being? I don't see any competitors on there that Google sued unless you consider Froogles (??) one. Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of the post. Was it instead to point out you could only find 5 cases in total of Google suing anyone for any reason over the past dozen years? Two for trademark infringement, which is a necessity (protect it or lose it), two for online fraud, and one against the US government. And none against a competitor.
EDIT: Fair is fair. Even tho you can't find a suit against a tech competitor over IP, you did get past four cases, which was another challenge I put in post 87. You're right and I'm wrong on that one. You got to five. Nice research!
I love Google Maps, use it on my computer, you know, in a browser. But when we were doing the iPhone, we thought, wouldn’t it be great to have maps on the iPhone? And so we called up Google and they’d done a few client apps in Java on some phones and they had an API that we worked with them a little on. And we ended up writing a client app for those APIs. They would provide the back-end service. And the app we were able to write, since we’re pretty reasonable at writing apps, blows away any Google Maps client. Just blows it away. Same set of data coming off the server, but the experience you have using it is unbelievable. It’s way better than the computer. And just in a completely different league than what they’d put on phones before.
- Steve Jobs
THE CRAZY ONES. The Misfits. The Rebels.
The one who made it his mission to put a dent in the universe, not to merely chase the competition down the rabbit hole of "commoditized, cheaper & thinner margins."
You wouldn't understand.
It doesn't have to look like the iPhone. It was found to have violated some Apple patents. If you have proof that it didn't, you'd better get in touch with Samsung and Google's legal departments right away.
Again, if you can prove that, you'd better get the information to Samung and Google's legal departments. Samsung tried to get the patent thrown out but they weren't able to do so. IIRC, Motorola also tried and failed.
And fandroids have the nerve to call Apple fans 'sheep'?
Your original statement was "Google hasn't yet sued anyone". Given that statement, showing a bunch of entities that Google had sued is most certainly relevant. IOW, you were wrong. Again.
As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't posted the bond yet - does anyone have any idea why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your original statement was "Google hasn't yet sued anyone". Given that statement, showing a bunch of entities that Google had sued is most certainly relevant. IOW, you were wrong. Again.
Yep, acknowledged that quite early on. When I first posted that the intent was a fellow tech player, but I said what I said and I own it. But we're waaay past that JR. Keep up.
Savoring the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth
As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't posted the bond yet - does anyone have any idea why?
The Apple vault only opens on Tuesdays. You should see the lineup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth
As far as I can tell, Apple hasn't posted the bond yet - does anyone have any idea why?
Only because Judge Koh hasn't made a "FINAL" final ruling on a possible stay until the appeals court can look at it. I know it's confusing as heck. Her decision may come later today.
To bring this thread current, when the Appeals court reversed the injunction order on the Galaxy Nexus today it added a footnote. The '604 patent, or Siri unified search, is unlikely to be both valid and infringed by the Nexus. Doesn't mean Apple won't continue trying to convince the court, but the judges at the Appeals level think it's pretty unlikely, finding Apple's explanation at odds with the actual patent claims.
Not sure if this is a good sign for innovation or bad sign for anyone to get inspired from Apple's technology and do something on similar lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpadhiyar
Not sure if this is a good sign for innovation or bad sign for anyone to get inspired from Apple's technology and do something on similar lines.
If you have any interest in why Apple's claims were rebuffed I've attached a link explaining why their unified search patent is not both valid and infringed (perhaps neither) by the Galaxy Nexus.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/apple-v-samsung-adding-elements-to-avoid-infringement.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If you have any interest in why Apple's claims were rebuffed I've attached a link explaining why their unified search patent is not both valid and infringed (perhaps neither) by the Galaxy Nexus.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/apple-v-samsung-adding-elements-to-avoid-infringement.html
Thanks. But I'm with the appeals in this regard. What Apple is aiming for, through the legal processes, doesn't seem morally right.
"Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India."
for more details
http://www.metalimpacts.in/heavy.php