Re: Sony the brand
Couldn't agree more. Their reputation is still in tatters.
The 2005 Sony BMG CD Rootkit.
The 2010 PS3 Linux Shutdown.
....etc.
The Sony F**K-YOU-CUSTOMER! bandwagon continues.
832 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Mar 2008
Apple's anti-Android FUD hasn't got through to Acer yet.
On a separate note, I'm glad to see Acer is offering a solitary WinPho8 in its line-up. At least it gives consumers choice - something Apple is not too happy about.
Agreed.
Is there no end to Apple's quest for self-destruction? Despite their 'win', the feedback from the Apple v Samsung case has been negative towards them with many (finally) waking up to the realisation that patents in the software industry retard innovation.
This latest attempt will come back to haunt them.
The BBC has published a jawdropping interview with the Jury Foreman.
"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.... the key was you could not replace one for the other."
This confirms what he said in the Bloomberg interview. LMFAO. Despite this 'test' being completely inappropriate, its clear he never attempted to run Samsung's TouchWiz on Apple's iOS.
What an A1, top-of-the-wazza, complete and unadulterated f**kup.
There is no way the current verdict will stand on appeal.
P.S. the reason why I'm publishing this here is because El Reg hasn't published the Bloomberg interview nor the BBC interview. Go figure.
Let's get this straight:
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was found not to infringe any patents and is due to be overturned on 20 Sept (I fail to see how it could be extended given the Jury clearly exhonourated it).
Save for the Galaxy SII (which is coming close to the end of it's retail shelf life) all of the other phones are no longer selling in any meaningful quantities to the 'ban' won't affect Samsung's P&L in any meaningful sense.
A pyric victory for Apple. Given the now-widely-reported-but-not-by-The-Register interview to Bloomber by the Jury Foreman it is almost a 'lay down misere' for a dismissal of verdict.
That was my initial thought as well, but after some consideration, I can see this evolving into something quite useful.
Looking back, remember how crap the iPhone 1 was? Okay, it's still overpriced but the functionality and design has moved on leaps and bounds.
I can see the same thing happening with this. Aside from obvious business applications (ie. "oh, the projector doesn't work, ring IT Support....Wait. No. We'll use my Samsung Electronics Galaxy Beam GT-i8520 instead") its personal use could be to watch a movie anytime, anywhere with your mates. Or girlfriend if she's into that sort of thing.
While they all hailed the large market cap, I had to Google to find out the more important info:
The company's ``price-to-earnings ratio'' is 15.6, compared to 16.1 for the S&P 500 overall. That suggests investors, unlike analysts, don't believe the company can grow its profits much from current levels.
There you have it. Unless the Board of Apple can pull another rabbit out of the hat like they did with the iPod, iPhone and iPad, then the stock is fully valued. With the TV industry in the doldrums and Steve Jobs no longer with them, it's difficult to see how any rumoured new Apple consumer appliance will maintain their momentum.
Like many others, I'm old enough to remember what happened to Apple Computer Inc the last time Steve Jobs departed from the company he co-founded.
It seems to me that this was the strategy all along. Apple's technical arguments seem weak, so it appears their lawyers felt their best shot was to paint Samsung as the bad guy. I really hope the Jury doesn't get swayed by this and decides the case on the strength of the arguments presented - irrespective of who they decide for/against.
That said, the fact that they didn't get to see all of the evidence (both Apple and Samsung wanted to show more) will mean an Appeal will be made. If an appeal goes ahead, then "what was the point in having the trial"?
I suppose she had to ask even though she probably feels there's FA chance of it happening.
The dispute isn't going to stop at the Jury's verdict though. Both sides have already created the necessary records for Appeal and Samsung has come out and said Apple violates some of its 3G patents.
The lawyers don't want it to end either. They're probably thinking to themselves "this is going to be just like SCO - a f***ing gravy train!!!"
Another Samsung expert, Dr. Tim Williams, walked the jury through two patents key to doing "high speed data transfer" on a 3G network. Those two patents, No. 7,447,516 and No. 7,675,941, are infringed by the iPhone and iPad, and mean that it's Apple—not Samsung—who needs to pay up.
The trial is still going. Not all of the evidence has been presented to the Jury yet (let alone TechCrunch).
I also saw this at TechCrunch:
"Apple has the right to defend what it feels it developed and patented"
I've emailed the Ed with the correction:
"Apple has to prove that (a) what it has patented is enforceable, and (b) what it has patented has been infringed."
The onus is on Apple to prove its case, not the other way around.
Witness for Samsung, Adam Bogue, a former business executive with Mitsubishi Electric Research Lab, discussed a multi-touch, touchscreen table-based system called DiamondTouch that he showed to Apple hardware engineers in 2003.
ie. Apple copied Bogue's work.
Benjamin Bederson, a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland, testified about a zoomable user interface his team developed called LaunchTile in the summer of 2004.
ie. Apple copied Bederson's work.
Itay Sherman, chief executive of the multi-touch company DoubleTouch and an inventor with 20 patents to his name said that features like big screens, rounded corners, and "lozenge" speaker holes predated what Apple brought out with the iPhone.
ie Apple copied DoubleTouch's work.
Roger Fidler demonstrated his 1990s 'Fidler' tablet prototype he designed as part of the labs group for news conglomerate Knight-Ridder, explaining that he had actually shown the device to Apple in 1994, the same year the company would apply for the '889 patent, which covers the look of the iPad.
ie. Apple copied Fidler's work.
Apple infringes three Samsung patent phone features: photo attachments to email, bookmarking digital photos and background music during other functions.
ie. Apple copied Samsung's work.
With so much copying going on, you have to ask who's the Slave and who's the Thief?
Agreed. The 4S was seen as money for old rope. Hell, it even looked like the iPhone 4. iPad3? iPad3 = iPad2 + better screen res and a 'massive' 5MP camera (like the one in my £30 HTC Wildfire S). These days Apple seems more concerned with litigating past glories than with innovating for the future.
Absolutely. Those with little appreciation of the taxation system forget that it is the Government that makes the tax laws. If they don't like what Google, et. al. is doing then they should change the law. The fact of the matter is that successive governments (Conservative and Labor) have failed to pass adequate legislation. If they don't like what Google, Lewis Hamilton, Jimmy Carr, et. al. are doing then they should legislate against it. Only they can do it. No one else can make laws. To try and 'shame' corporations into paying more tax that they legally have to is, put simply, an admission that the Government is powerless (or gutless) to do anything about it.
I agree. And thank goodness for IR35. Avoiding PAYE on personal earnings under the sham of a 'contract' has finally been nipped in the bud. Only legitimate contractors can now get those tax breaks.
Or maybe tax avoidance isn't such a bad thing as long as it doesn't affect my taxes?