Sign in / up

back to article Apple demands US ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus

Apple is seeking a US ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, the flagship phone for the newest iteration of Google's Android smartphone OS, in the latest battle of the ongoing patent wars. The fruity firm filed in California, saying that "a preliminary injunction regarding Samsung's new Galaxy Nexus, which infringes multiple key Apple …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This'll get messy

    Let's try and think what's gonna happen here

    1) Lot's of slagging off of apple

    2) Some defence - voted down

    3) Wild confusion between copyright and patents

    4) SOmeone will mention rounded corners

    5) Some juvenile wil call them crApple - highly original and funny

    6) Everyone will overlook anything that casts google in a bad light

    7) The comments will descend to the intellectual equivalent of some of the lesser tech sites whose membership has an average of 20

    Off you go. Have fun

    30 30
    1. WonkoTheSane
      Reply Icon

      You forgot 8

      8) Nobody wins but the lawyers.

      26 0
      1. Ru
        Reply Icon
        Trollface

        "8) Nobody wins but the lawyers."

        Please note also that the number of ad impressions the Reg gets will go up whilst this story is accruing fresh comments. Vultures do well by being on the sidelines of a good fight!

        1 0
    2. fishman
      Reply Icon

      Too much credit

      "7) The comments will descend to the intellectual equivalent of some of the lesser tech sites whose membership has an average of 20"

      Average age of 20? I would have guessed 14.

      3 3
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        I assumed

        It was an average IQ of 20. :-)

        4 0
    3. Dave's Jubblies
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      you forgot...

      Barry Shitpeas storming in and blaming microsoft for it all....

      13 2
      1. Gordon Fecyk
        Reply Icon
        Trollface

        That's my line!

        This is somehow all Microsoft's fault... :-) They somehow started the software patent wars, and Apple and Samsung are just emulating them...

        2 0
    4. mr1970
      Reply Icon

      A studious list but you missed out one obvious point - someone's contribution to the 2500 year old tradition of Socratic dialogue will be the use of the word "Fanboi".

      3 1
      1. Johan Bastiaansen
        Reply Icon
        Trollface

        Fanboi

        Fanboi is the new fascist, isn't it?

        0 2
    5. Steve Knox
      Reply Icon
      WTF?

      Not a bad list, but...

      "6) Everyone will overlook anything that casts google in a bad light"

      Really? Have you actually read the comments about Google on these forums?

      5 0
    6. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Advanced preparation

      You wrote that in advance, ready to pounce at the first instant of an Apple related story. :)

      8 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Holmes

        If I'd written it in dvance

        There wouldn't have been so many typo's!

        1 0
    7. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      NOT again........................

      0 0
    8. Bear Features
      Reply Icon

      You forgot to mention that people just roll their eyes at Apple's usual crap ;)

      2 0
    9. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      5) Some juvenile wil call them crApple - highly original and funny

      I usually call them that, glad you like it so much, thank you. Here’s a few more highly original and funny names:-

      MickySoft, MicroShaft, Farcebook, haemoid phone, iFad, iPooed, iPhoney, MS Orifice (featuring Expel, Turd, Abscess and LookOut), eunuchs operating system, COBOL (Completely Outdated Boring Old Language) and the Vi(le) editor.

      Oh hang on, the last one wasn’t a joke.

      0 0
  2. Owen Carter
    WTF?

    Must be relying on the courts being full of fanbois.

    "infringes on our patent... which recognises data such as phone numbers and provides a link directly to the dialler"

    I had a black and white Nokia that did that 14 years ago. Patent denied. Next...

    How thick does a fanboi have to be if they fall for this crap and really start to believe that Apple is the grand source of all innovation?

    38 5
    1. ThomH
      Reply Icon

      @Owen

      Your theory being that Apple are posturing as a form of advertising rather than merely exploiting the patent system for the questionable legal decisions others have been able to obtain?

      0 0
    2. Giles Jones Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      So you had email on your phone 14 years ago? I somehow doubt it. They're on about recognising things in emails and SMS also.

      0 6
      1. fLaMePrOoF
        Reply Icon
        Flame

        I think 14 years is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes; recognizing and dialer / hyper-linking URLs / phone numbers etc. in sms and emails is a feature that was available on several platforms (both smartphone and featurephone) long before Apple filed a patent on it.

        Of course, Apple routinely ignore prior art and imagine everything they 're-invent' becomes original in some mysterious way, for example, remember the ads for 'facetime' - a bunch of cookie cutter Apple execs talking about how amazing and revolutionary this was, when in fact 3G video calling and video conferencing in general have been running video chat in this format for years, and Apple as usual brought up the rear and were pretty much last in line to give in and put a front facing camera on their phones...

        Apple are not an innovator, they're a corporate and cultural cancer. Apple are to business what The Church of Scientology are to religion.

        13 0
        1. Craigness
          Reply Icon

          Blackberry in '99?

          I had this on my 2005 Treo, but apparently it was available on blackberries 10 years before this 2009 page...

          http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4575

          Ironically, the page is Android users demanding the feature

          1 0
        2. Owen Carter
          Reply Icon

          Nokia 6110 from mid 1997.

          It was crude, the phone picked up on phone numbers in incoming messages and allowed you to list them, select one and call it if I'm not mistaken. I followed it with an 8210 which definitely had this feature (so I might be confused.. but I don't think so, IIRC the UI's were essentially the same).

          As for email.. the first Nokia Communicators were out by then; I never used them but would not be surprised if they allowed you to create address book entries from the text in email and messages.

          2 0
        3. Chika
          Reply Icon
          Coat

          Oh come on, now. That's a bit strong!

          Mind you, they did once claim to be the first company to put a RISC processor in a desktop. That was until Acorn called them on it!

          OK, I might give you that...

          1 0
      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Down

        Fifteen years ago, actually.

        That's when I bought my truly excellent Nokia Communicator 9000.

        1 0
      3. Tom 13
        Reply Icon

        @Giles: Pagers predate cell phones

        and the early cells had to duplicate the pager functions. Once you have that, email is an obvious extension. Possibly difficult to implement, but still obvious.

        0 0
    3. Jim Carter
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Not forgetting...

      Voice search has been on my Android for the best part of two years now.

      2 0
    4. Johan Bastiaansen
      Reply Icon
      Go

      a solution

      what would put an end to this is, if these blatant frivoulous suits would result in real people doing real time behind real bars.

      1 0
    5. Steve Todd
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Considering that the data tapping patent

      was filed 16 years ago (1 Feb 1996) I don't think the Nokia counts as prior art. (U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, go look it up yourself). Also the patent is about a METHOD of achieving this effect, not the effect it's self. It should be possible to create a method to do something similar that doesn't infringe (abet with reduced usability).

      1 2
  3. NoneSuch Silver badge
    WTF?

    "Even worse ... the full harm to Apple cannot be calculated, making it impossible for Apple to be compensated by money damages."

    Legal speak for 'we might lose sales on one or two iPhones so better safe than sorry.'

    Apples worse enemy is Apple. Is it me or are the number of lawsuits increasing since Mr. Jobs passed away? Whodathunk he was the brake keeping the lawyers from running free.

    13 0
    1. g e
      Reply Icon

      Cannot be calculated

      Damages are too small, insufficient decimal places.

      Give them 1 cent.

      6 2
  4. tmTM

    A little late?

    If the case had any genuine merit surely they'd of filed it ages ago, in many country to stop the phone being released in the first place.

    This seems like a desperate pathetic attempt with no hope in hell of success.

    4 3
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      The patents concerned were only granted in 2011

      0 1
      1. Richard 81
        Reply Icon

        Then I call prior art.

        5 0
    2. DRendar
      Reply Icon
      Headmaster

      "If the case had any genuine merit surely they'd of filed it ages ago, in many country to stop the phone being released in the first place."

      No.. They'd HAVE filed it ages ago.

      0 0
  5. JDX Gold badge

    Backfire on Apple?

    Apple has massive share amongst young cool trendy people. I doubt that demographic is really in favour of corporate lawsuits, and so Apple could lose "cool points" if they become widely known for quashing competitors.

    4 1
    1. Craigness
      Reply Icon

      Have you been on fanboy sites? Most of them seem to think apple invented the smartphone and everything a smartphone does. They don't even know that Apple is claiming other people's inventions or even that android is quite a bit different to Ios, they just think the other players are copycats.

      5 1
  6. Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)

    Can I point out that...

    Apple are coming over as their own worst enemy at the moment. Suing everyone in sight, whilst simultaneously whining that FRAND licencing agreements (which countless others have happily agreed to) shouldn't apply to them is making the entire company look like the spoiled brat in the supermarket screaming at the top of their voice because Mummy wont let them have a trolley load of sweets.

    The worst part is that I really no longer care if Apples claims are valid. You simply cant go round complaining that the law shouldn't apply to you, whilst suing everyone else for the slightest thing.

    And before everyone downvotes, please note that I've not said their claims aren't valid, just that I don't care. If you want to downvote on that basis, feel free.

    42 2
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Your post, like so many others, is false

      http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0249000/249997//mnt/rails_cache/https-ecf-wiwd-uscourts-gov-cgi-bin-show_doc-pl-caseid-29810-de_seq_num-329-dm_id-3602496-doc_num-93.pdf

      Learn to research and learn to read

      0 12
      1. Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)
        Reply Icon

        Mr Anonymous Coward, did you actually read that link you posted? Did you even bother to read the order? Because that is about Motorola applying to have Apples calls for exemption from FRAND dismissed (Dkt #33 in the document) and that application being upheld (page 38) since Apple don't have a valid claim for waiver. The document even states categorically "Plaintiff’s (Apple) claim of waiver is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"

        Care to post something less wrong?

        6 1
        1. Craigness
          Reply Icon
          Thumb Up

          9) Anonytards will mostly be pro apple and will factually be wrong

          6 1
        2. Steve Todd
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          @Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT) - did you bother reading any of the preceding 37 pages?

          The reason that the claim of waiver was dismissed was a technical one.

          "I will deny Motorola’s motion to dismiss, with the exception of its motion to dismiss Apple’s claim of waiver because waiver is an affirmative defense, not a cause of action."

          All other motions were ruled in Apple's favour.

          1 3
          1. Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)
            Reply Icon

            @ Steve Todd - did you bother actually reading my initial post?

            So what exactly did I say in my initial post that was so incorrect? Apple are whining that FRAND agreements shouldn't apply, and while Motorola may have behaved less than perfectly, THE FRAND AGREEMENT AS OF RIGHT NOW STILL APPLIES TO APPLE.

            Jeez, I've seen Plankton which catch on quicker than Apple fans.

            3 0
            1. Steve Todd
              Reply Icon
              FAIL

              @Rameses Niblic the Third (KKWWMT) - apparently there IS something in the world

              more stupid than plankton, that would be you.

              Apple raised a series of legal claims in a countersuit against MMI, saying not that they wanted to be free of FRAND, but that MMI were abusing FRAND comitments, that they were omitting to mention IP to standards bodies relevant to standards that they were partaking in (which they were subsequently declaring to be essential) and that they were withdrawing/revoking licences from chip manufacturers (in disregard of ETSI FRAND rules which require all licenses to be irrevocable) in order to try to force licensing terms on Apple that were different to the rest of the market. The judge ruled that Apple had valid cause (not that the case was proven, but that MMI needed to answer).

              The ONLY point that the Judge sided with MMI over was the request for waiver (which is technically only usable as a defence plea, not when raising a suit) as a means of relief from MMIs actions. Apple are still free to seek huge damages if the court finds in their favour.

              Now how on earth do you think that matches your claims?

              2 1
              1. Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)
                Reply Icon

                @Steve Todd - Matching claims

                I already stated that Motorola have behaved less than perfectly, having said that, if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties.

                This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to. Unfortunately, there is no specific calculation for FRAND, it being based on things such as degrees of importance and other such fuzzy issues, meaning that there is not a specific price noted.

                Apple don't like it because they feel Motorola are trying to charge too much, and have appealed to the court for exemption.

                Regardless of what else is in the document, as I said before, Apple are still bound to come to an agreement with Motorola over the use of their technology, and to say that it doesn't matter because that's the only claim upheld, or bemoan the fact it was upheld on a technicality is entirely wrong. It is in fact, as far as this discussion goes anyway, the ONLY part of the document which matters.

                So yes, for my argument, I would say it entirely matches my claims.

                0 1
                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Reply Icon
                  Anonymous Coward

                  I am with Mr. Todd

                  MMI have taken licenses away from licencees (not AAPL) who sell licenced products to APPL, but ONLY when the licenced products get sold to APPL.

                  This is discrimatory and I believe not allowed under the FRAND model rules. MMI have a case to aswer.

                  MMIs new proposed model of 2.5% of the handset price (rather than whatever the charge they get per chip from the chip manufacturer), for a single patent (of 100s or 1000s in a 3G phone) is patently (pun intended) ridiculous for a device that has thousands of patents involved in its construction.

                  If someone builds a GSM sender into a Rolls Royce, MMI gets 2.5% of the floor price of a RR ?

                  0 0
                2. Steve Todd
                  Reply Icon
                  Stop

                  @Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT) - apparently lack of reading comprehension and memory

                  are among your flaws.

                  Your original post stated "whining that FRAND licencing agreements (which countless others have happily agreed to) shouldn't apply to them", but the legal filing stated that this was the precise opposite of what was on offer. The "countless others" get their licenses paid for in the cost of their base band chips. MMI want Apple to pay a completely different royalty based on the RRP of their devices. This doesn't meet the ND part of FRAND. It's completely unsurprising that Apple, having agreed to pay the cost of a licensed baseband chip, are upset that MMI have revoked that license and demanded a much higher rate.

                  Your next post, in response to the legal ruling PDF, claimed "Because that is about Motorola applying to have Apples calls for exemption from FRAND dismissed", which is again completely wrong. It's about Apple's claims that MMI had abused FRAND terms and tried to charge them an unreasonable licensing fee being found to be of sufficient merit to require trial. The ONLY thing it ruled out was the possibility of a free license as valid remedy of those alleged abuses.

                  Your final post made a bunch of stuff up. Nowhere else in this thread did you say "Motorola have behaved less than perfectly", to which you add "if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties", which is actually in contravention of ETSI FRAND rules so it's not just between those two parties. Then you state "This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to.", ignoring the fact that they didn't have to because they'd ALREADY paid for it (go look up patent exhaustion).

                  Non of this shows joined up thinking or understanding on your behalf of what Apple are claiming.

                  1 2
  7. Andrew Jones 2
    FAIL

    Since Australia

    Since the quote Apple made in Australia "people who buy the Galaxy Tab are lost Apple customers that we may never get back" (or something along those lines) - it's painfully obvious that Apple is terrified (and rightly so) that people will regard the Android platform as being more powerful and useful than iOS is - and rather than fix what is broken with iOS - they would rather go for the easy option - wipe out the competition. I actually find it slightly sad but mostly worrying - that when Apple start copying Android (and others with cloud integration, notifications stored in a swipe down bar, "multitasking") suddenly the new OS is buggy and the acclaimed "magical" battery life that all iDevices apparently have - suddenly halves. Clearly not as talented as those Apple devs are proclaimed to be....... They want to be careful though - if their next iDevice release is nothing more than an upgrade - like the last one - they are really going to anger their fanbase.

    As for this Patent war - Apple have become a bit too public with their hatred of Samsung - and it is clearly for more than just Android - losing court cases and then appealing and re-appealing is really coming across as "Apple throws toys out of pram".

    It will be interesting to see what happens when (if) Google really do release a Google branded entertainment device - will Apple have the balls to sue Google directly instead of dancing around the topic suing everyone involved with Google?

    10 1
    1. ThomH
      Reply Icon

      You're belying your own prejudices - the quote could equally be interpreted to mean that Apple don't expect anyone to buy two tablets at the same time and as a tacit admission that app stores are a form of platform lock-in.

      There's nothing to justify putting the 'more powerful and useful' words into Apple's mouth.

      1 2
      1. fLaMePrOoF
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Down

        In the contrary, it's you who's revealed a prejudice:

        Most popular apps have versions on both platforms, the only real 'lock in' is Apple's walled (and electrified & razor wired) garden...

        The Android platform and related services (with the partial exception of the Amazon Kindle Fire) makes little or no attempt to 'lock in' users with proprietary limitations and restrictions, but rather relies on the opposite approach of openness and choice to attract users.

        Apple, on the other hand, operate almost exclusively in this way which makes any move from iOS to another platform WAY harder and less likely than a move from another platform to iOS. (Although admittedly the latter is mitigated by the fact that not many right thinking people, having tasted and enjoyed freedom, will march willingly into a jail cell.)

        1 1
        1. ThomH
          Reply Icon

          @fLaMePrOoF

          If I buy an Android device and purchase £25 worth of apps, then switch to an iPhone then I lose my apps. The fact that I could buy them again makes no difference. I'm not tied to any particular vendor and none of the companies on the Android side has put that limitation in place to serve its own interests but I am nevertheless locked in to the platform.

          I can't see how that logic requires prejudice of thought.

          0 0

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like