linuxplatform

Seriously what color is the sky in your world? The first POPULAR "i" product that Apple released was the iPod in late 2001. Prior to then it was just the iMac, which practically no one outside the United States creative industry bought or even so much as knew existed because Windows had like 97% market share at the time in the US and globally the Mac market share was even lower. Claiming that this was some attempt to capitalize on an Apple personal gadget brand that didn't even exist yet instead of being a generic moniker for "my phonr" or "internet phone" is ridiculous even for you.

Beats said:

I always find it funny when Apple has to fight for a name inspired by Apple.

bestkeptsecret said:

I don't know the specifics of the case, but if the trademark was applied for 7 years before the release of the iPhone, I think Apple should simply reach a deal with them and buy the trademark.

There was another company called iCloud which became CloudMe because Apple purchased the iCloud trademark from them. 

The problem I see is companies using Apple's iconic "i" for attention. iHome, iGoogle and Sony's iSound are examples. None of these companies gave a sh** about the letter "i" until Apple started using it before their names. "The iComfort Sleep System" is the worse of the bunch.

Apple wanted to charge Samsung a $50 per device fee over TRADE DRESS and you are upset over Qualcomm wanting about $2 per device over VITAL FUNCTIONALITY WITHOUT WHICH THE DEVICE WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL THAT THEY INVESTED BILLIONS OF R&D DEVELOPING? Man you people are sick ...

verne arase said:

gatorguy said:

I never seriously doubted QC would be successful with their appeal.  Now will come the appeal of the appeal ruling. 

It doesn't matter to Apple anyway as they already came to an agreement with Qualcomm that both parties are satisfied with. No doubt QC was already aware of Apple plans for building their own chipset to replace them and getting a 6 year revenue contract with Apple was a good move considering they wouldn't be needed by then anyway except for essential patent licenses.

There was no agreement ... Apple caved due to their need for 5G in the iPhone 12.

Apple should never have withdrawn their FTC complaint and testified to Qualcomm's extortion in the Smartphone industry. Qualcomm's gotten away with their abuse of standards bodies and FRAND terms for much too long.

This will come back to haunt Apple later on when they attempt to manufacture and distribute phones using their own chips.

This isn't as bad as Daniel Eran Dilger's demonstrably false yet never recanted "Android will fail and Google is going to go broke and Chromecast is a blatant inferior ripoff of AirPlay that will fail" columns from not long ago but still, don't put out nonsense like this that clearly lack a modicum of research.

1. No love lost for Microsoft, as they - along with Apple and Oracle - were among the cabal that tried to push Linux, open source databases and Android out of the marketplace during the last decade using a variety of legal and marketplace pressure tactics. But Microsoft makes it clear that this device is not a phone, is not a tablet and is not meant to compete with the iPhone, iPad or even any Android device. Instead, it is a companion device for their somewhat successful line of Surface 2-in-1s. Basically, if you already like and use their Surface devices at work or in your home/office, you will want this device because it will have the same sort of "ecosystem" benefits that iPads have with MacBooks. But if you are not a Surface user, you will have no need or want for this device. Yes, this device is expensive - but similar to Apple fans - Surface device owners are used to paying a premium instead of just getting Lenovo or Dell devices that offer the same form factor and superior performance/specs for hundreds less.

2. Instead of comparing this device with the Samsung Galaxy Fold - which is an entirely different one - someone who actually knows something about Android would compare them to LG phones. LG has been releasing dual screen devices for over a year ... the LG Thinq G7, the LG Thinq G8 and the LG Velvet. All of them have detachable 6.8' screens, much bigger than the Duo's 5.6' screens. All of them have the latest - meaning much faster - CPUs. They also have more RAM, and lack of RAM is a killer in Android devices with big screens (Google tried lower RAM devices with "software optimizations" for no reasons other than sheer arrogance for years before finally giving up and putting 6 GB of RAM in their Pixel 4A and the Pixel 5 will have 8 GB). Oh yes, and they all have 5G and NFC. A couple of mobile bloggers who are actually knowledgeable about Android - yes such creatures are rare outside Android enthusiast blogs themselves - flat out recommended buying the Thinq or Velvet (especially the Velvet) instead of this device.

3. Claiming the Z Fold has "bad software" is ignorant. Compared to what? Because here's the deal: Apple doesn't have a product in this category yet. As usual. It would have been dumb to call the Samsung Galaxy Note Pro back in 2012 "a device with bad software" because Apple didn't come out with their own "Pro" tablet device with true multitasking support, stylus support and keyboard/trackpad support until later. (Actually MUCH LATER as the iPad Pros were in name only initially with the multitasking and trackpad features not added to OS, turning iOS into iPadOS, for several years.) Similarly, Apple currently has no software to drive a true folding device. The only true folding devices in existence are the 2019 and 2020 Galaxy Fold devices as well as a competing Huawei device that Huawei was only able to manufacture a few thousand units of (but the few who have actually seen and used them say that they are outstanding). Here's the thing: people who have actually used the Galaxy Fold and Flip devices say that they are great, especially the second generation versions of each that were just released and didn't have the "first generation iPhone/first ever MacBook Air" roughness. Which means that - by default - the software on these devices are GREAT until something comes along that's BETTER. We will see a Pixel folding phone (that will probably be similar to the Surface Duo) and allegedly a folding iPhone (which will be more like the Galaxy Z Fold) next year. At that point you will be able to SUBJECTIVELY claim that the Z Fold has bad software. Till then there is no way to even SUBJECTIVELY make that claim because A) the Z Fold's software works great in that it does what it is supposed to do in operating the device and delivers a good experience in the process - a consensus opinion held by nearly everyone who has bought or reviewed the device and no product with "better" software exists.

Before sdw2001 said:

LOL. Written by someone who has absolutely no clue how broken the patent system is. I have a family member who worked in it for years.  The Eastern District of Texas is the most active patent court in the country. These non-practicing entities are not the same as Apple at all.  Yes, both own patents. But Apple uses them to protect the technology that goes into the actual devices and software they sell. These “companies” produce nothing.  Not only do they not produce products, but they don’t even really contribute to the economy. They are leeches.  

This is simply wrong. Patents are intellectual property, an asset just like stocks, bonds and real estate. You sound like Oliver Stone's anti-capitalist rant in Wall Street where he made the utterly ridiculous claim that being a stockbroker is an inherently evil profession, similar to the folks who rant against private equity, finance, fossil fuel companies (and increasingly tech companies) because they believe that the socialism fairy is going to come along and put a happiness amulet under their pillow at night or something.

Here is the reality: if a company creates intellectual property via a patent but lacks the ability, scale or know-how to create, market and sell a product based on that patent then they should absolutely sell that patent for cash. Also, if a company that created a patent, sold a product at one time but decided that they wanted to exit the business then again sell that patent for cash. Further, were such a company to go bankrupt - as most do eventually - then yes absolutely the bankruptcy courts should sell their patents to cover their obligations to creditors. 

Also, by your ridiculous definition, ARM HOLDINGS IS A LEECH. Further, by your logic, since Samsung most definitely isn't a leech - they do massive amounts of their own R&D and indeed Apple themselves uses and benefits from their innovations - then Apple should have no case against them right? Samsung should be able to just walk in and copy and take whatever they want. Why not? Seriously, under your theory - that patents should only be held by companies currently manufacturing and selling products directly relevant to the patents - then we would soon, immediately and quickly have no effective patent system. Is that really what you want to see? And for what? Just so Apple can pad still more to their already highest in the industry profit margins? And I bet that you are one of those fellows who felt that Samsung should have been driven out of the industry over "home buttons and rounded corners" but that Apple should be allowed to pay pennies on the dollar to Qualcomm and everyone else because "they're Apple and it is their designs and integration of parts that give patents their economic value in the first place" right? 

Look, PanOptis has gone after others over these LTE patents too: BlackBerry, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE including winning an $11 million judgment against Huawei. The original patents in this area were owned by Ericsson, LG, Samsung and Panasonic. Ericsson is longer with us, so their IP was sold by the bankruptcy courts. Panasonic, they got out of this line of business years ago. Samsung is still very much involved in this - they recently released a white paper proposing 6G standards to be approved and adopted by 2030 - but neither they or LG seems to be in the licensing business. So Samsung, LG and Panasonic likely sold their IP in this area for cash. All these patents were bundled into a common portfolio to maximize their value, and the portfolio has been bouncing around a bit. 

I see that a lot of Apple-centric sites have been claiming that these NPEs are patent trolls. What they fail to disclose is that Apple never at any point claimed that they weren't using someone else's IP. Instead, Apple made the absurd claim that the patents were invalid despite fully knowing that a recent previous lawsuit - against Huawei - said that they were! So there was no way for Apple to win this case and no basis for it. And there is no way for Apple to win this case on appeal because that would be impossible without overturning the judgment against Huawei also. Apple's only hope is for this judgment to be reduced on appeal, but there is a limit to how much. The judgment against Huawei was a lot smaller, but Huawei doesn't sell anywhere near as many phones and tablets as Apple does and doesn't generate anywhere near their profits. So a per device charge based on the Huawei rate would obviously mean less than half a billion but also far more than $11 million. Also, the NPE in question requested that Apple licensing terms on valid patents that they legitimately owned. From what I read, Apple didn't even respond to their requests to license the tech. Apple instead made the bizarre claim that the patents were invalid. Now we have two court cases which clearly establish otherwise. 

But hey, you go ahead and continue to claim that a patent is only valid when Apple holds it. Or that patents can only be enforced against Apple's competitors ... for example I am certain that you 100% favor Oracle in their lawsuit against Google. Never mind that Oracle only got the Java patents by buying a bankrupt Oracle that actually did the IP work, meaning the same way that PanOptis got their IP. Fortunately no federal, international or foreign judge, jury or trade body is going to agree with you.

d.j. adequate said:

So these aren’t really noise canceling at all. Just reducing low frequency hum. That’s a deal breaker right there for me. 

It is more like Samsung created their own definition of ANC, which by the way isn't a protocol or anything else based internationally or industry agreed upon standards i.e. 4G, Bluetooth 5 or waterproof ratings anyway. Reviews on this are basically split down the middle with about half saying "their ANC is fine" and the other half claiming that the product doesn't have ANC at all.

It isn't as if Samsung tried to achieve ANC with this product and somehow failed. That would make no sense as plenty of their past audio products have had traditional (for lack of a better term) ANC, and particularly since they made ANC among the most central features in the promotional materials for this product. Meaning that they didn't just list it in the specs and features area as an aside or throw in detail. Instead ANC was heavily promoted as a core feature and a major reason to anticipate this product and  choose it over its competitors. So it is more likely that Samsung is creating their own spin on ANC starting with this product, and that their future headphones and earbuds will adopt it also. As to whether Samsung's (re)definition of ANC suits your preferences or needs, caveat emptor and YMMV.