Tablet maker Nuevas Tecnologías y Energías Catalá, the company behind one of Apple's rare court defeats, is now taking the fruity tech titan to court for extortion. Apple alleged that the teeny-tiny company's tablet, sold in Spain under the NT-K brand, was a forged iPad, and on that basis convinced custom officials to impound …
> Is there no limit to superman Muller's capabilities?His only weakness is his inability to shut the fuck up.
Muller's record not that goodOnly two goals for his current side in 41 appearances - according to wikipedia
Why are you citing Florian Mueller?Look at his record of pronouncements. He has been *almost* universally wrong. He is a paid shill. It is safer, these days, to presume that, if Florian says something will happen, the alternative will actually play out. Vic.
A shill.......for whom? He's anti-software patents it seems, so he can't be a shill for MS or Apple. Can you cite a source, please.?
Anti-software patentsStrange how he always seems to be on the side of the fence for the software patent "abuser" then isn't it. FM is a FUD blogger - how much exactly and all the parties is not known, only some of them are.
@AC at 13:45"Strange how he always seems to be on the side of the fence for the software patent "abuser" then isn't it." On the fence? Can you cite, please? "FM is a FUD blogger - how much exactly and all the parties is not known, only some of them are. " Well, can you please cite what is known? I've barely heard of the guy, checking Wikipedia shouws he admitted to an MS study in Oct 2011, that's it. And thanks (whomever) for the downvote it was a genuine question.
While we are bandying about tired Internet memes
I used to use line breaks and then I took an arrow to the knee . . . .
Wikipedia & MuellerSorry to keep on with the Florian Mueller bashing, but I was under the impression that all of Mueller's litigation expertise came from Wikipedia. After all, his pronouncements on legal issues have proved to be wrong depressingly often. I agree with Vic - Mueller is not a reliable source.
Why is el Reg still citing Florian Mueller?The guy has been found out previously, he's not reliable and is partisan towards his paymasters.
Quoting Florian doesn't have to be inevitable...After all - if Rory Cellan-Jones can manage to write a piece for Auntie without mentioning Apple once (the blue moon was yesterday, for the record) - then surely... just once... El Reg can match this feat?
So, anyway, Florian Mueller aside...If Apple's action cost the company then surely as part of the process of success the affected company should be able to claim costs & damages from the claimant, incurred during defence of their side of the case, which you'd hope, included financial loss incurred via any penalties wrongly imposed based on the outcome of the case. Plus interest, plus a fair assessment of lost additional revenue had the penalties not been sanctioned. Hope being the key stumbling block, of course...
-1, not enough Florian rageNot only should they be able to claim actual damages, but it's about damn time that someone gave apple a good whipping for claiming ownership of the rounded rectangle. The iPad is an extremely innovative product, but only because someone finally managed to cram all the bits in for the light, flat, futuristic, sci-fi computer pad thingy that we all though was cool when we first saw its like on the telly 20 years ago. It's not like the whole idea was revolutionary, and they surely shouldn't be able to stop others from making similar things.
I thought......the Aussies had already given Apple a boot to the conkers?
@David HicksCan only upvote you once, I'm afraid, but I couldn't agree more.
Not only should Apple have to pay to make the injured party whole, as you've suggested, but Apple should *also* lose all the benefits they have gained from excluding a competitor from the market place ("unjust enrichment").
"was a forged iPad"Forged? So it was an almost-exact copy, including branding, with intent to deceive?
Forged?perhaps they meant made of metal by men with hammers?
@ Aotor 1...ok, Aitor my man. you've had ten minutes. what's your pronouncement? if i am sure of one thing, it'll be that your views will be of more use to us (even after 10 minutes of skipping through) than Mr. Muller's law-LITE pronouncements.
Are not most Apple court cases just anti-brand marketing?Most of these have been fairly ludicrous so is it not true that they simply do it as a form of brand marketing. Mud sticks and Apple seem to be the limbo dancers of morality.
As the proverb says"A little learning is a dangerous thing" Is Muller like Peter Hitchens - paid to have an opinion that chimes with the core readership but just ends being offensive or unpleasant to the rest?
"The problem with Florian Mueller seems to be that he has an understanding of the law"
You really want to get flamed? Go to a forum where the nuances of law and litigation are discussed and make that statement again.
You're trolling aren't you?
What the hell ....
... is a Googletard ?
Muller ignores the spice
What is obvious about these shrills is that they obscure the comedic nature of these patents
Paid shrill comes to mind when one looks beneath the patent surface and sees a plot suitable for a Black Adder sketch.
"who fortunately speaks Spanish as well as understanding court procedures"
If he speaks Spanish as well as he understands court procedures, he must translate all sentences to "I will not buy this record, it is scratched."
The answer is easy-peasy no?
Apple buy the problem, it is less expensive that courting justice with greater predictability and swifter to due process yes?
How strange... I took at look at their website and the NK-T pads look about as different from an iPad as possible for a tablet computer. Especially the MASSIVE shoe-box sized one.
Agree with you, Bill, BUT
one must keep in mind that Apple has designed-registered and patent-protected all the Platonic solids, in particular flattish ones with rounded corners. So no matter what those chaps in Catalonia may think, say, or do, they're clearly in the wrong....
Maybe Apple should plead insanity?
"(A)ggressive enforcement activities" are not, in themselves, a crime (and AFAIK nobody is saying they are.) But, if the motivation behind them is to pressure someone into giving up the income from a legal activity, couldn't they still form part of a crime? It's unlikely Apple ever believed these machines were being passed off as iPads, so what they are objecting to is someone selling a *substitute* for an iPad. I think that's called 'competition'. Perhaps the case hinges on whether Apple *genuinely* believe that competing with Apple is a criminal offence?
It's only a fake iPad in the same way the Galaxy Tab is a fake iPad. In look and feel the nearest you can get to calling it a fake iPad is that it has icons and apps, but that's because it's Android based. No different to every other tablet maker that's been sued by Apple.
Give up profits + lost revenue x3
Apple Should have to give up the profits it made from selling its competing products during the period that the ipad ripoffs were being detained x3 and also should be liable for paying NT-K for all lost revenue past, present and future as a result of this little legal shanghai x3.
If the courts started handing out judgements along those lines Apple might rethink its actions before dragging companies in to court.