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.
The iPad and MacBook air both disprove your point completely.
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.
Prior to your statement "competition = good," being considered (much less proven true), the following must be proven:
You must define "competition." Who? What markets? What devices? Is the sale of a 5" "smartphone" an alternative to the purchase of a 3.5" smartphone and a 9.7" tablet?
You must define "good." "Good" for whom? "More good" than alternatives?
You must prove competition is "good." Many studies exist that demonstrate that competition is not "good."
Personally, I find the argument fallacious. Who in their right mind believes that a device which only requires a USD $96 million bond for a preliminary injunction is competition for a company with profits over USD $10 billion per quarter and a market capitalization of over USD $500 billion.
RIM must be happy, with BB10 behind schedule this just might give them the space to sell something. I always thought that the best defense would have been a collaboration, one device, one system, where all parties could have profitted. Instead they fought themselves and the iPhone and its ecosystem--it's strongest point to many--allowing Apple to forge an ever growing stronghold on the market. As for this victory I hope it deters not instigates more legal rambling. Really, don't we all just want to enjoy our chosen platforms and devices.
Pretty much a boilerplate statement since the Nexus has no resemblance at all to any Apple product, at least that I can see. The injunction must be based on a utility patent or two rather than "look and feel" as the statement from Apple would imply.
You are correct the injunction was based on a utility patent, however, you are wrong about the look and feel not resembling Apple. I was in a Best Buy Store the other day and I saw at least three people walk by the Samsung display and think the phone was an iPhone. Samsung is coping Apple heavily. Much more so than HTC, Motorola, and Nokia. Apple's argument is Samsung's copying of its look and feel is what is allowing Samsung to sell so many phones. Considering HTC, Motorola, and Nokia are struggling Apple's argument may have some validity.
[" 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.
So the tech world revolves around what you say should and should not survive based on what you like? High horse much? When you become a big boy and mommy and daddy can no longer fill your head full of lies about being special you will understand how the real world works. I hope you are a minority in the pool of the youth or this world is doomed.
"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.
The difference is Motorola isn't selling many phones. Hence Posner saying Apple couldn't' prove damages. Samsung is selling more phones than Apple. Damages are easier to establish there. Further, different patents are at issue.
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.
Why does people equate copying with innovation? Innovation inherently means coming up with your own ideas not copying your competitors.
[" url="/t/151011/apple-wins-injunction-against-samsung-galaxy-nexus-smartphone#post_2137447"]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.
You get to ride the subway all by yourself? You must feel like a big boy. Based on the level of immaturity and ignorance in your statements I can only conclude your youth.
You are correct the injunction was based on a utility patent, however, you are wrong about the look and feel not resembling Apple. I was in a Best Buy Store the other day and I saw at least three people walk by the Samsung display and think the phone was an iPhone.
There's people that think every smartphone is an iPhone. Neither the Nexus nor S3 has even a passing resemblence to Apple products other than they both have screens and icons. Even you would agree with that, correct? The "look" isn't much issue any longer IMO. I can't think of any new smartphone that looks like an iPhone.
Why does people equate copying with innovation? Innovation inherently means coming up with your own ideas not copying your competitors.
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
This is definitely a great win for our Apple family. The fandroids will be hurting real bad over this judgment.
It has already started unraveling:
Update: Reuters reports that Judge Koh, "scheduled a hearing on Monday to consider whether to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold pending appeal." In a decision earlier this week, Koh also granted Apple a pre-trial ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Koh said she might rule on Sunday whether to hold that injunction pending appeal.
So she made an decision, then quickly decided to reconsider.
Why does people equate copying with innovation? Innovation inherently means coming up with your own ideas not copying your competitors.
In Android-land up-is-down, black-is-white, etc. They have an illogical, irrational view that isn't supported by evidence. Frankly, it is beyond my comprehension but evidence suggests that such is literally the case. Anything to fuel their hatred of Apple. As someone previously noted, there are few people that love Android but many who hate Apple which appears to be the primary force driving the adoption of Android-based smartphones.(1) There truly does appear to be a self affirmation bias (reality distortion field) at work on Android fans.
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 "<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;">the injunction later be found unjust" part?</span>
Its the number estimated to be the loss Samsung will take for not being able to sell the Nexus. If Samsung wins the patents case then they are awarded that money as compensation.
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.
Well they have to since they don't have much in the technical non-search space. Just about everything they have outside of the search space is bought after the fact or just hoping to not get sued over. That's a significant part of why they purchased Moto Mobile.
Well they have to since they don't have much in the technical non-search space. Just about everything they have outside of the search space is bought after the fact or just hoping to not get sued over. That's a significant part of why they purchased Moto Mobile.
Don't read that drivel posted by the Android faithful. Google has plenty of lawsuits or has armed partners and subsidiaries with the means to sue competitors.
"Google owns Motorola Mobility Inc. "Judge Richard Posner threw out a heated case between Apple and Google-owned Motorola Mobility yesterday, ending an infringement squabble between two companies in deep competition."" (1)
"A regional German court in Mannheim ruled on Friday that Apple Sales International -- European sales subsidiary of Apple in Cork, Ireland -- must stop selling or distributing mobile devices that infringe certain Motorola patents." (2)
"The U.S. International Trade Commission has granted an Apple motion to dismiss five patents HTC received from Google last year." (3)
Comments
The iPad and MacBook air both disprove your point completely.
Prior to your statement "competition = good," being considered (much less proven true), the following must be proven:
Personally, I find the argument fallacious. Who in their right mind believes that a device which only requires a USD $96 million bond for a preliminary injunction is competition for a company with profits over USD $10 billion per quarter and a market capitalization of over USD $500 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Pretty much a boilerplate statement since the Nexus has no resemblance at all to any Apple product, at least that I can see. The injunction must be based on a utility patent or two rather than "look and feel" as the statement from Apple would imply.
You are correct the injunction was based on a utility patent, however, you are wrong about the look and feel not resembling Apple. I was in a Best Buy Store the other day and I saw at least three people walk by the Samsung display and think the phone was an iPhone. Samsung is coping Apple heavily. Much more so than HTC, Motorola, and Nokia. Apple's argument is Samsung's copying of its look and feel is what is allowing Samsung to sell so many phones. Considering HTC, Motorola, and Nokia are struggling Apple's argument may have some validity.
So the tech world revolves around what you say should and should not survive based on what you like? High horse much? When you become a big boy and mommy and daddy can no longer fill your head full of lies about being special you will understand how the real world works. I hope you are a minority in the pool of the youth or this world is doomed.
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.
The difference is Motorola isn't selling many phones. Hence Posner saying Apple couldn't' prove damages. Samsung is selling more phones than Apple. Damages are easier to establish there. Further, different patents are at issue.
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.
Why does people equate copying with innovation? Innovation inherently means coming up with your own ideas not copying your competitors.
You get to ride the subway all by yourself? You must feel like a big boy. Based on the level of immaturity and ignorance in your statements I can only conclude your youth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
You are correct the injunction was based on a utility patent, however, you are wrong about the look and feel not resembling Apple. I was in a Best Buy Store the other day and I saw at least three people walk by the Samsung display and think the phone was an iPhone.
There's people that think every smartphone is an iPhone. Neither the Nexus nor S3 has even a passing resemblence to Apple products other than they both have screens and icons. Even you would agree with that, correct? The "look" isn't much issue any longer IMO. I can't think of any new smartphone that looks like an iPhone.
This is definitely a great win for our Apple family. The fandroids will be hurting real bad over this judgment.
Why do people equate writing checks as innovation? Apple didn't invent Siri, develop or have anything to do with it. They wrote a check for it. Smart, very, innovative, not very.
It has already started unraveling:
Update: Reuters reports that Judge Koh, "scheduled a hearing on Monday to consider whether to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold pending appeal." In a decision earlier this week, Koh also granted Apple a pre-trial ban on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Koh said she might rule on Sunday whether to hold that injunction pending appeal.
So she made an decision, then quickly decided to reconsider.
In Android-land up-is-down, black-is-white, etc. They have an illogical, irrational view that isn't supported by evidence. Frankly, it is beyond my comprehension but evidence suggests that such is literally the case. Anything to fuel their hatred of Apple. As someone previously noted, there are few people that love Android but many who hate Apple which appears to be the primary force driving the adoption of Android-based smartphones.(1) There truly does appear to be a self affirmation bias (reality distortion field) at work on Android fans.
1. Henry Blodget and Leah Goldman. Published 18 April, 2011. THE TRUTH ABOUT SMARTPHONES: Our Exclusive Survey On iPhone vs Android. Bussiness Insider. Retrieved 29 June, 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
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.
Screamie!! You are back to resorting to ad homs and not even trying to debate on a posts merits.
Its the number estimated to be the loss Samsung will take for not being able to sell the Nexus. If Samsung wins the patents case then they are awarded that money as compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Screamie!! You are back to resorting to ad homs and not even trying to debate on a posts merits.
it had no merits. i came, i saw, i insulted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Well they have to since they don't have much in the technical non-search space. Just about everything they have outside of the search space is bought after the fact or just hoping to not get sued over. That's a significant part of why they purchased Moto Mobile.
Don't read that drivel posted by the Android faithful. Google has plenty of lawsuits or has armed partners and subsidiaries with the means to sue competitors.
"Google owns Motorola Mobility Inc. "Judge Richard Posner threw out a heated case between Apple and Google-owned Motorola Mobility yesterday, ending an infringement squabble between two companies in deep competition."" (1)
"A regional German court in Mannheim ruled on Friday that Apple Sales International -- European sales subsidiary of Apple in Cork, Ireland -- must stop selling or distributing mobile devices that infringe certain Motorola patents." (2)
"The U.S. International Trade Commission has granted an Apple motion to dismiss five patents HTC received from Google last year." (3)
1. Meghan Kelly. Published 23 June, 2012. Apple v. Motorola Mobility epic patent case thrown out. Venture Beat. Retrieved 29 June, 2012.
2. Poornima Gupta and Maria Sheahan. Published 10 December, 2011. Motorola wins German patent case ruling vs Apple. Reuters. Retrieved 29 June, 2012.
3. Steven Musil. Published June 11, 2012. Apple wins dismissal of HTC patents borrowed from Google. CNET. Retrieved 29 June, 2012.