Seems like those ban in Australia isnt so successful.
People are buying passing the retailer all together and getting their Galaxy Tab online.
They are saying, in this internet age, what is the practicality of banning sales in one jurisdiction when consumers have the power to purchase anything on the internet from anywhere else? The only groups that is hurting is the local retailers and resalers.
Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?
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
Apple better make sure they don't step on Samsung's patent-holding toes with any future product or they better be prepared to develop a new or different way to achieve or implement it. I know I'm making a generalized statement but there are so many patents to make so many CE products function that Samsung probably has oodles of key patents covering everything from TVs to cellular and general telephony technology to computers and chips. How does one establish where the line is drawn between low-level and high-level patents? Seems subjective to me, and I think it would be difficult for any given Judge to decide where the line is, also.
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
And I think part of those negotiations include sharing each others patents. Obviously Apple think they have one up and are in the catbird seat, between the patents and the slavish copying, because they are getting favorable court orders. Are the Samsung patents Apple are infringing upon as strong and important to the UI and functionality of the iPad compared to the one's Samsung is infringing upon to use in the Galaxy Tab 10.1?
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
Well, that's one way to spin Samsung's loss last week.
"A Dutch court on Friday turned down Samsung Electronics' request for an injunction against all of Apple's mobile products that use 3G telecommunications technology, denying it revenge over a similar move by Apple."
"On Friday, the Dutch court found that Samsung's 3G patents were part of essential standards which should be open to license under FRAND and that the two companies should negotiate an agreement."
If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards...
But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch....
Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. ...
Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.
Questions of anti-trust are always raised when one company owns more than 30% of a particular market. Apple owns arguably 75% of the tablet market. licensing might deflect some of the antitrust issues, as I understand things
]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 : )
Those share were non convertible, non voting shares, and MS had to keep them for at least 5 years. IIRC, MS sold them pretty much as soon as they could, and made a very nice profit. Not as nice a profit as they would have gotten if they kept them until present day, but still?
Do you understand that, in the real world where property rights might matter, 'buy' = 'own'?
Context matters. I know Apple owns it and I know they put a considerable amount of time and money into it. My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
They purchased it and combined it with their own technology killing two birds with one stone.
They eliminated any legal issues with patents and the owners got wealthy while becoming important devs already at Apple within a very large ecosystem.
But no one acts like they're Nazis for purchasing the skeleton tech as opposed to making it 100% in house.
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.
Microsoft also payed a settlement fee that have not been disclosed. Indirectly they admitted to do wrong things. (Like Intel paying AMD and so on...)
If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.
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. \
That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
Actually, that's not how it works - at least on YouTube. If you upload a copyrighted soundtrack, they send you an email telling you that it's a copyrighted work and ask you to remove it if you don't have permission to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
While we wait for the AI staff to wake up tomorrow morning, some relevant tidbits from 'round the web:
Will diaper case help Samsung in battle with Apple?
...
Under the Federal Circuit's decision in the diaper case, Apple therefore might have difficulty meeting the standard set for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
Note, however, that this applies only to the preliminary injunction. When it comes to the actual case, the patents are presumed valid unless Samsung can prove otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Online shoppers are ignoring Samsung ban
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
Comments
And in a move certain to infuriate some of the regulars here, the leaders of both comanies showed civility to one another:
Samsung President Invited to Steve Job's Memorial Service
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...101700661.html
Really? Who here would be infuriated by that, except the Android fanatics who regularly post here, bad-mouthing Apple and Jobs?
Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?
Really? Who here would be infuriated by that, except the Android fanatics who regularly post here, bad-mouthing Apple and Jobs?
Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?
Not to mention Steve's collaboration with Samsung goes back 3 decades.
Point was they purchased it.
They purchased it and combined it with their own technology killing two birds with one stone.
They eliminated any legal issues with patents and the owners got wealthy while becoming important devs already at Apple within a very large ecosystem.
People are buying passing the retailer all together and getting their Galaxy Tab online.
They are saying, in this internet age, what is the practicality of banning sales in one jurisdiction when consumers have the power to purchase anything on the internet from anywhere else? The only groups that is hurting is the local retailers and resalers.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...017-1lsdg.html
Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?
Yes.
Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?
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
Apple better make sure they don't step on Samsung's patent-holding toes with any future product or they better be prepared to develop a new or different way to achieve or implement it. I know I'm making a generalized statement but there are so many patents to make so many CE products function that Samsung probably has oodles of key patents covering everything from TVs to cellular and general telephony technology to computers and chips. How does one establish where the line is drawn between low-level and high-level patents? Seems subjective to me, and I think it would be difficult for any given Judge to decide where the line is, also.
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
And I think part of those negotiations include sharing each others patents. Obviously Apple think they have one up and are in the catbird seat, between the patents and the slavish copying, because they are getting favorable court orders. Are the Samsung patents Apple are infringing upon as strong and important to the UI and functionality of the iPad compared to the one's Samsung is infringing upon to use in the Galaxy Tab 10.1?
Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
Well, that's one way to spin Samsung's loss last week.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79D2UT20111014
"A Dutch court on Friday turned down Samsung Electronics' request for an injunction against all of Apple's mobile products that use 3G telecommunications technology, denying it revenge over a similar move by Apple."
"On Friday, the Dutch court found that Samsung's 3G patents were part of essential standards which should be open to license under FRAND and that the two companies should negotiate an agreement."
That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.
whats the point of having patterns if you have to sell them
That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.
Perhaps. But so long as the refuse to license patents aren't FRAND items, like the ones Samsung sued over, the Apple isn't doing anything illegal
On the contrary. It's a very competitive statement.
Exactly. Letting other steal your technology is not a competitive move.
I can.
If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards...
But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch....
Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. ...
Well stated.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
Does anyone know what this technology is called? Who made it etc?
Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.
Questions of anti-trust are always raised when one company owns more than 30% of a particular market. Apple owns arguably 75% of the tablet market. licensing might deflect some of the antitrust issues, as I understand things
]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 : )
Those share were non convertible, non voting shares, and MS had to keep them for at least 5 years. IIRC, MS sold them pretty much as soon as they could, and made a very nice profit. Not as nice a profit as they would have gotten if they kept them until present day, but still?
Really, Appleinsider, really? Does it read as crudely as it looks. Maybe someone should change those two words to 'from'.
Do you understand that, in the real world where property rights might matter, 'buy' = 'own'?
Context matters. I know Apple owns it and I know they put a considerable amount of time and money into it. My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.
They purchased it and combined it with their own technology killing two birds with one stone.
They eliminated any legal issues with patents and the owners got wealthy while becoming important devs already at Apple within a very large ecosystem.
But no one acts like they're Nazis for purchasing the skeleton tech as opposed to making it 100% in house.
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.
Microsoft also payed a settlement fee that have not been disclosed. Indirectly they admitted to do wrong things. (Like Intel paying AMD and so on...)
If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.
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.
That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.
Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.
Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.
So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.
Actually, that's not how it works - at least on YouTube. If you upload a copyrighted soundtrack, they send you an email telling you that it's a copyrighted work and ask you to remove it if you don't have permission to use it.
While we wait for the AI staff to wake up tomorrow morning, some relevant tidbits from 'round the web:
Will diaper case help Samsung in battle with Apple?
...
Under the Federal Circuit's decision in the diaper case, Apple therefore might have difficulty meeting the standard set for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
...
http://tech2.in.com/news/general/wil...h-apple/249182
Note, however, that this applies only to the preliminary injunction. When it comes to the actual case, the patents are presumed valid unless Samsung can prove otherwise.
Online shoppers are ignoring Samsung ban
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...n/2326002.aspx
So? Who cares? Apple has been winning cases left and right. Samsung will eventually have to do the right thing and redesign their products.
And in a move certain to infuriate some of the regulars here, the leaders of both comanies showed civility to one another:
Samsung President Invited to Steve Job's Memorial Service
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...101700661.html
Why would that infuriate the regulars? You have some really strange ideas.