It's amazing how you judge and label a group of people simply because they choose to use a different CE device than you. And you call them ignorant?
At some point in the future, the Apple Army™ will mount an all out attack on Android terrorists and the country of Apple will have the military forces occupy the land of Google for ten or fifteen years. The final cost of the war and occupation? Seventy-three trillion dollars.
[" url="/t/151011/apple-wins-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-nexus-smartphone#post_2137426"]It's not because they use a different device, it's because of their ignorance, their hatred, their stupidity, their lies and their constant bogus attacks on Apple and Apple users.
I would like to see Android completely destroyed. Windows 8 and other systems can be allowed to survive, because I don't really care about them. Android should die though, because I don't like their users.
Except you sound a bit like the flip-side of what you're railing against...
Sad that you extend it to the entire Android operating system when the e-hate we see online is not representative of the regular user base.
(Same goes for the people who make generalizations about Apple users).
AAPL rose nicely today. It'd be nice to see that continue come monday.
Just face it Fandroids, your phones and tablets in their present form would never even exist, if it weren't for Apple in the first place.
Lets face it, Apple wouldn't be investing millions to continue to innovate and release the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... if there wasn't healthy competition from Android phones. Competition = good for the consumer like you and me. Stop being a nerd.
I'd say salvo #1 in Steve's "thermonuclear war" just exploded.........(considering this is the first legal action that actually sounds like it could hurt.....)
More like the nuclear trigger has been inserted and the bomb just went hot.
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage, but it was pretty funny and also pretty predictable to read some of the whiny and hateful comments being made by the butthurt Fandroids there. Hopefully there are more bans and injunctions coming in the future, it makes me feel good to see other ignorant people mad.
Except you sound a bit like the flip-side of what you're railing against...
Sad that you extend it to the entire Android operating system when the e-hate we see online is not representative of the regular user base.
(Same goes for the people who make generalizations about Apple users).
Of course I'm talking about online only.
I'm not going to assault some random person on the street for using an Android phone, lol. When I'm on the subway, I usually just pity the people who I see using non-Apple phones.
Lets face it, Apple wouldn't be investing millions to continue to innovate and release the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... if there wasn't healthy competition from Android phones. Competition = good for the consumer like you and me. Stop being a nerd.
I don't buy into the "competition is good" argument. I find that argument to be not valid. Competition is fine, but copying and infringing upon other people's IP is not.
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
It means that if Samsung wins the litigation, Apple will have to cover the losses Samsung incurred when their product was not on sale.
I don't buy into the "competition is good" argument. I find that argument to be not valid. Competition is fine, but copying and infringing upon other people's IP is not.
So the notification bar, new on iOS 5 isn't ripping off Android? And the Fed thinks competition is good, that's why we have anti-trust laws. Its a very valid argument given that you "want Android destroyed." Without Android owning 50% of the mobile usage, Apple would feel little pressure to make new iPhones.
And besides, why do you personally care if Google infringes on Apple? Is your pension 100% invested in Apple shares? If it isn't, I bet a portion of the Large Cap portion of your 401k (or 403b) is invested in Samsung. Lemme guess, you're an incredibly moral person and wouldn't ever break or even bend a single law, rule or regulation.
Dang, I have a Galaxy Nexus and an iPhone; never have I confused one with the other but gotta hand it to Apple for going after the Google branded phone. A bond of almost $100M - risking a much bigger chunk of change than the Galaxy Tab. If they lose this one in the end, I hope Mr. Sewell is prepared to walk the plank.
Heh heh. As a shareholder, I am willing to forsake 0.018315% of Apple's market cap for the sheer fun of it!
It's not because they use a different device, it's because of their ignorance, their hatred, their stupidity, their lies and their constant bogus attacks on Apple and Apple users.
I would like to see Android completely destroyed. Windows 8 and other systems can be allowed to survive, because I don't really care about them. Android should die though, because I don't like their users.
glad to see the balance restored. for all the 'idiots' that use android, you are big enough apple buffoon to even it out.
android isn't going anywhere so go take your meds.
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
It is for the loses Samsung would incur while the device is pulled from shelves while the claims made against them on the product is be decided. Remember that right now it only the belief of the Judge that they are likely to succeed.
It would be unfair to any company if sales of a product is blocked and they get zero compensation when it is decided they there was no infringement. If there is no infringement then it was wrong/unjust to have the injunction in the 1st place.
To simplify things Apple has put their money where their mouth is. If their arguments at trial fails to convince a jury Samsung infringed then they have to cough up the 96 million.
So the notification bar, new on iOS 5 isn't ripping off Android?
Apparently not. If Google thought the Notification Center was a copy of Google's prior art they should sue. As far as I know Google hasn't sued, nor have Google's legal entities sued them for patent infringement regarding the Notification Center.
Apparently not. If Google thought the Notification Center was a copy of Google's prior art they should sue. As far as I know Google hasn't sued, nor have Google's legal entities sued for them for patent infringement regarding the Notification Center.
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Oh yeah, the Fandroids will be in an apoplectic frenzy all weekend - plenty of entertaining reading. Cue the "Apple thinkz they has a patent on the rectangle' mantra.
Also acceptable for trolling:
"Apple is afraid of a little competition"
"Apple used to be innovators but now Timmy just wants to sue everybody"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
It's amazing how you judge and label a group of people simply because they choose to use a different CE device than you. And you call them ignorant?
At some point in the future, the Apple Army™ will mount an all out attack on Android terrorists and the country of Apple will have the military forces occupy the land of Google for ten or fifteen years. The final cost of the war and occupation? Seventy-three trillion dollars.
Except you sound a bit like the flip-side of what you're railing against...
Sad that you extend it to the entire Android operating system when the e-hate we see online is not representative of the regular user base.
(Same goes for the people who make generalizations about Apple users).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Boom!
AAPL rose nicely today. It'd be nice to see that continue come monday.
Just face it Fandroids, your phones and tablets in their present form would never even exist, if it weren't for Apple in the first place.
Lets face it, Apple wouldn't be investing millions to continue to innovate and release the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... if there wasn't healthy competition from Android phones. Competition = good for the consumer like you and me. Stop being a nerd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBFan85
I'd say salvo #1 in Steve's "thermonuclear war" just exploded.........(considering this is the first legal action that actually sounds like it could hurt.....)
More like the nuclear trigger has been inserted and the bomb just went hot.
Christmas in June as far as I'm concerned.
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I headed over to Engadget for a few laughs, a site which I rarely visit anymore, because the comment sections are infested with ignorant trash and human garbage, but it was pretty funny and also pretty predictable to read some of the whiny and hateful comments being made by the butthurt Fandroids there. Hopefully there are more bans and injunctions coming in the future, it makes me feel good to see other ignorant people mad.
So pretty much like all your posts then....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
Except you sound a bit like the flip-side of what you're railing against...
Sad that you extend it to the entire Android operating system when the e-hate we see online is not representative of the regular user base.
(Same goes for the people who make generalizations about Apple users).
Of course I'm talking about online only.
I'm not going to assault some random person on the street for using an Android phone, lol. When I'm on the subway, I usually just pity the people who I see using non-Apple phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubernabei
Lets face it, Apple wouldn't be investing millions to continue to innovate and release the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... if there wasn't healthy competition from Android phones. Competition = good for the consumer like you and me. Stop being a nerd.
I don't buy into the "competition is good" argument. I find that argument to be not valid. Competition is fine, but copying and infringing upon other people's IP is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedude
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
It means that if Samsung wins the litigation, Apple will have to cover the losses Samsung incurred when their product was not on sale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't buy into the "competition is good" argument. I find that argument to be not valid. Competition is fine, but copying and infringing upon other people's IP is not.
So the notification bar, new on iOS 5 isn't ripping off Android? And the Fed thinks competition is good, that's why we have anti-trust laws. Its a very valid argument given that you "want Android destroyed." Without Android owning 50% of the mobile usage, Apple would feel little pressure to make new iPhones.
And besides, why do you personally care if Google infringes on Apple? Is your pension 100% invested in Apple shares? If it isn't, I bet a portion of the Large Cap portion of your 401k (or 403b) is invested in Samsung. Lemme guess, you're an incredibly moral person and wouldn't ever break or even bend a single law, rule or regulation.
Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Dang, I have a Galaxy Nexus and an iPhone; never have I confused one with the other but gotta hand it to Apple for going after the Google branded phone. A bond of almost $100M - risking a much bigger chunk of change than the Galaxy Tab. If they lose this one in the end, I hope Mr. Sewell is prepared to walk the plank.
Heh heh. As a shareholder, I am willing to forsake 0.018315% of Apple's market cap for the sheer fun of it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It's not because they use a different device, it's because of their ignorance, their hatred, their stupidity, their lies and their constant bogus attacks on Apple and Apple users.
I would like to see Android completely destroyed. Windows 8 and other systems can be allowed to survive, because I don't really care about them. Android should die though, because I don't like their users.
glad to see the balance restored. for all the 'idiots' that use android, you are big enough apple buffoon to even it out.
android isn't going anywhere so go take your meds.
It's a good news. Copycat Samsung deserves the preliminary injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
"Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm" due to "long-term loss of market share and losses of downstream sales," Judge Koh said.
Wasn't this is the "harm" Apple was attempting to demonstrate to Posner? It's harm that will happen down the line.
Posner has gone down a few notches in the eyes of many people. The guy seemed prone to hissy-fits more than calm, cool, collected judgment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedude
can someone explain the "$96 million bond" part? they have to pay $96 million to cover damages of what?! and while you are at it, explain "the injunction later be found unjust" part?
It is for the loses Samsung would incur while the device is pulled from shelves while the claims made against them on the product is be decided. Remember that right now it only the belief of the Judge that they are likely to succeed.
It would be unfair to any company if sales of a product is blocked and they get zero compensation when it is decided they there was no infringement. If there is no infringement then it was wrong/unjust to have the injunction in the 1st place.
To simplify things Apple has put their money where their mouth is. If their arguments at trial fails to convince a jury Samsung infringed then they have to cough up the 96 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Posner has gone down a few notches in the eyes of many people. The guy seemed prone to hissy-fits more than calm, cool, collected judgment.
Posner has a terrible record as far as I'm concerned. Look. I don't care how many books or arguments he's made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15cncwarren.html?_r=1&ref=richardaposner
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/books/review/Ferguson-t.html?ref=richardaposner
In addition, he loses all credibility with me for his Keynesian positions.
Apparently not. If Google thought the Notification Center was a copy of Google's prior art they should sue. As far as I know Google hasn't sued, nor have Google's legal entities sued them for patent infringement regarding the Notification Center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Apparently not. If Google thought the Notification Center was a copy of Google's prior art they should sue. As far as I know Google hasn't sued, nor have Google's legal entities sued for them for patent infringement regarding the Notification Center.
Google hasn't yet sued anyone despite a large number of patents in its portfolio both home-grown and acquired, including one filed for the notification bar back in 2009. They controlled thousands of them even before the MM purchase. Google has a completely different attitude towards initiating litigation against it's tech neighbors than any of it's competitors.
Also acceptable for trolling:
"Apple is afraid of a little competition"
"Apple used to be innovators but now Timmy just wants to sue everybody"