Time is short it seems...
That's the smell of panic as the lasts of the RDF burns off the brand, time for some running around in circles at infinite loop.
I have no suggestion as to how they fix this.
A US Federal appeals court has rejected Apple's request to expedite its appeal requesting a ban on a passel of its über-enemy Samsung's smartphones from the US market. "In some sense, Apple was asking to 'cut in line'," Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love told Reuters, "and judges are generally reluctant to give …
For Christs sake Apple get with the plot - you're not top dog anymore and it really is time to Think Different, if you can. That means your pathetic lawsuit days are over - including trying to trademark how ever the fuck you lay out your stores.
By the way, hows that thermonuclear thing working out for you?
This post has been deleted by its author
"Well, I *was* generally interested in iThings but that was when they were innovative. It seems you have two mutually exclusive modi operandi: innovate, or sue. IMHO, Apple has switched to the wrong one.
*Not* happy, and wondering when (or even IF) they stop this cr*p."
I'd make to stick with your poor choice in tech, you should always be apple's bitch.
"Apple are making more people aware of Samsungs products so in essence they are shooting themselves in the foot."
Yup, In Australia the original galaxy tab 10 (I think) was legally blocked from sale initially. Lots of publicity over the court case.
When the injunction was lifted Samsung took out full page ads in every major newspaper with the byline "The Tablet Apple Didn't Want You To See".
Isn't it Apples contention that the 'copying' of their IP is already occurring?
Additionally, IIRC they are 'design' patents rather than invention / technological. IMHO, they should never have been granted. Some trademarked, perhaps, not patented though.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-versus-samsung-2012-8?op=1
Can you imagine if Xerox had patented the WIMP system? Or someone else, the double-click?
I'm gonna go patent the double click RIGHT NOW
But I agree, what's annoyed me most is the number of "for a mobile device" patents you see. I don't care because, as far as I'm concerned, a smart phone fulfils the criteria for a PC, ergo all those 'mobile device' patents are invalid. But of course that's logical, something you'll never see in the USPTO
Perhaps I'll alter this a little for the hard of thinking
"Scrap patents and lets see some REAL innovation start to happen." - it won't
"Scrap patents and lets see some REAL copying start to happen." - it will
By REAL innovation I mean new drugs and other physical inventions, not software, design
By REAL copying I mean copying that will stop REAL innovations happening.
By REAL innovation I mean new drugs and other physical inventions, not software, design
I really don't see why software engineering should be relegated to some sort of 'second class citizen' in the engineering world whereby chemical, electronic or mechanical engineers are allowed to patent the fruits of their efforts, but software engineers are not.
What we do need are patent examiners who are smart enough to realise that applying something that's been done before in a new context (e.g. 'on a mobile phone') doesn't make it a new idea that can be patented, or that mimicry on-screen of a real-world process (e.g. a page turning animation) doesn't make that a new idea that can be patented, although there may be underlying processes used to create that mimicry (e.g. some clever method of handling the animation) that can be patented.
Of course we also need patent examiners who are diligent and knowledgeable enough to research prior art properly!
You'd say that unless you had spent a lot of time and money developing something just for someone else to rip it off. Oh and say goodbye to any new pharmaceuticals - I mean why bother with the hundreds of millions in R&D, failed products then years of clinical trials if it's ok for someone to just make a cheap generic version?
Oh you mean scrap Apple's patents as it's ok to rip them off?
Well scrap Samsung's as well but then maybe they would not bother developing new flash, cpus, screens etc.
Not really thought this one through?
I walked into the Bluewater Apple store once. It was most unpleasant. Filled with fanbois sweating profusely as they grappled to lay their hands on the latest slab. I'm sure thy would have been rolling on the floor and piddling in delight if there had been room.
I tried out an iPhone. Hated it. Not at all intuitive.
I'm off to trademark piddling in the air in delight.
This whole Apple vs Samsung thing is the battle - the war is iOS vs Android (as I don't see Blackberry or even WinPho getting much traction). Samsung will almost certainly lose their top Android spot in the next year or two as they have nothing unique and their margins get eroded - patent fights with Apple and expensive (but pointless to most viewers) TV ads are expensive.
By the time Microsoft were found guilty, the competition no longer existed and so effectively they got away with it. Now it looks like Samsung can drag this out long enough to nullify any damage that losing might have caused them. The moral of the story is that if you can afford enough lawyers then you can sail as close to the wind as you like.
Since this has been fairly obvious for quite a while now, we have to assume that the congress-critters are also aware and don't have a problem with it. It's the system. It wouldn't be my choice, but I don't live there so I'm not going to shove my penchant for rule of law down anyone's throat.
Apple should work with it, not against it. They should just start nicking other people's stuff and wave lawyers at them if they get stroppy. Perhaps they could patent it as a business model.
"Apple should work with it, not against it. They should just start nicking other people's stuff and wave lawyers at them if they get stroppy. Perhaps they could patent it as a business model."
I think they already have a patent on that business model, epsecially where mobile devices are concerned.