Posts by Craigness

Re: When companies commit patents to FRAND

If it shouldn't be included under FRAND then they can charge what they like. If it's a required part of the technology but was declared too late to be removed in favour of other technology which was declared even later, then who really cares?

If something is worth paying for then people will pay for it (unless they can steal it). If the technology adds no value then it has no value, but it does add value so it should be paid for.

Re: Not the way that accountants think

There's no need to assume but yes, I was wildly inaccurate.

Without cellular: 16Gb: $499, 32Gb: $599, 64Gb: $699.

With cellular: 16Gb: $629, 32Gb: $729, 64Gb: $829.

So Apple charge $130 for the chip when it's in an Ipad. How much have they offered to the people who did the work which adds $130 to the value of their product?

Re: Funny

It's reasonable if the technology is worth that much. If it's worth that much then it's not reasonable to offer them any less.

Re: Apple is so WRONG on every count..

Before someone comments that it was all lovey-dovey, agreed and paid for

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html

Page 2 is particularly relevant to today, but now it's not new tech under discussion, it who should be allowed to use sliders and icons in...decade-old form factors.

Re: jury instructions crucial

Didn't Apple fail to show that any money from their use of Samsung's IP went to Samsung? Shirley they can't be covered by Intel's licenses in that case.

Re: Not the way that accountants think

Apple charges $100 for the 3g chip once it's been put in an ipad. 2.5% of the value created by Samsung's work seems fair, not 2.5% of whatever the cheapest chip can be made for.

Re: Win Win for everyone

Motorola want to be paid for their work, Apple want to stop anyone using ideas similar to their own. So only 1 of them is using the patent system to restrict competition. But if Apple decides not to pay for other's work then the only option is the courts, and threats of a ban.

Re: Funny

If Nokia and Samsung both have SEPs which they charge at 10% then in effect neither pays royalties to make phones. Apple has nothing to offer so gets charged 20%. That's fair and non-discriminatory.

Re: What patents exactly?

Flash can still be downloaded on new devices, I did it myself at the weekend. 667290 so far, and still counting. And many websites serve html5 to Chrome.

You didn't invent bread, meat or the slicing of either, and putting meat in bread has been done before. But if it hasn't been patented before then under the first-to-file rules you could prevent innovators from selling their goods. It would indeed be an apple style patent.

They've made a sandwich with lots of old fillings not found in the same sandwich before, and now want to ban others from using any of the fillings in differently shaped sandwiches (even with shapes created before apple entered the sandwich business), with different packaging and brand names, which do not pretend to be apple's sandwich nor want to be confused with apple's sandwich. Meanwhile apple pays nothing for the use of the slicing machine which makes all this possible.

Re: @EyeCU - well reasoned responses?

Quite apart from the fact that a black rectangle with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top is actually a pre-iphone Samsung design which they have the right to use, none of that nonsense answers the question of why every Samsung sale is an apple lost sale, when sales were made to people who would not have bought an apple product.

The F700 would have given apple too hard a job in court, so they were allowed to pretend it didn't exist and that Samsung's design department since 2005 has consisted of an iphone and a photocopier. But in the real world we're allowed to talk about it. Why do you bother with this apple fanboy apologetics when you know you're wrong and everyone else knows you're wrong?

Re: Android starts to catch up with the iPhone...

I use flash on mobile devices and it's never been a problem, always been very useful.

I also use it in Chrome on the desktop but have it disabled by default. This gives me the "full web" as Jobs envisioned it, and it remains a mass of grey boxes many years after he announced that vision. I don't enable all of the boxes, but I enable a lot of them and do so at least once a week. Flash works and it's still a requirement.

For the last Coward I'll make the following correction:

99% of people who have selected "Automatically send usage statistics and crash reports to Google" use flash each week and are not forced to be tracked by Google. Why do people still not get this?

I think it uses Adobe Air on phones, but on my tablet it's just a shortcut to the web. It should be the same version though, so I don't know why they'd have a difference.

Re: Ah well...

Follow the link in the article. Download the apk file from Adobe and sideload it when you get ICS, but you won't get any updates. My new tablet is arriving at the weekend so I'm in a similar predicament.

Re: Android starts to catch up with the iPhone...

Truer than you think, because this is clearly a downgrade. Google stats recently showed something like 99% of Chrome users used flash on the desktop in the last week. Steve Jobs was hopelessly wrong on this one, and the web is still not ready for a flashless world.

Re: I'm not sure where Samsung think they are going with this

They're claiming ownership of a generic case design, which incorporates features that have been used before. Apple and Samsung both created designs which use those features and Apple wants to ban Samsung from using Samsung's (and Knight-Ridder's etc) design features.

If they want to claim a specific design then let them. Samsung's products are specifically a different design, but are generally the same.

Re: Android is a ghetto

The "fragmentation" is not a problem because they designed the platform to allow multiple versions and hardware configurations. Design it properly and your app will work on a huge range of devices. Convert an ios app and you'll fail.

That BBC story was from 9th May. The sales figures have improved since then, and those don't include the Amazon store. Freemium and Free With Ads are popular models on Android, so the ad revenue should not be ignored. I suspect the main reason the sales are low is because there are so many developers offering free apps. With no fragmentation issue, it's easy for people to develop so whenever you need to get something done, there's a free app that will just work.

Re: But

Well said, Mark. Apple gets such uncritical coverage by tech reporters, bloggers and the media in general that many people who don't follow closely could easily be of the opinion that Apple invented pretty much every aspect of the modern smartphone. Samsung is prevented from nobbling a jury which may well have been pre-nobbled by years of positive spin from Apple fans.

Re: Gmail will eventually lock-in its users to Google+

It's also done video chatting for ages. You don't have to use it if you don't want to but cheers anyway.

Re: A Crime to be Pro Google?

Default is to upload over wifi.

Nobody is forcing G+ on anybody. You can delete your G+ account and keep your Google account.

They can show that the industry was going in the direction of minimal decoration and large screens. If their device is only superficially related to a Sony product then they didn't copy it. The fact that they designed a phone so similar to the first Iphone without referencing the Iphone shows that they didn't take their design ideas from Apple.

Re: Import ban

HTC did all that, and I hear they have a patent on it, so they could disrupt Apple if they were as pathetic as Apple. But Samsung also have a patent! Surely these things don't get issued for frivolous inventions which have already been invented? Anyway, I doubt prior art would mater. An import ban is just a case of "does this infringe" and "does the damaged party want an import ban whilst the patent is being tested".

Re: Pretty solid case

Metavisor, you apple apologists are getting more ridiculous by the day. The point is that someone who buys a tablet with Samsung written on it thinking it's an Ipad cannot be considered and "ordinary observer". They should be considered an "idiot". How can someone that stupid even know that they want an Ipad in the first place? The law on copying makes the sale of fake iPads illegal and the presence of idiots does not preclude things which are not fake Ipads from being sold to ordinary observers.

Re: Import ban

Not to mention "sequentially displaying images stored on the device". Why not go and invent something of your own, Apple?

Re: Pretty solid case

If they clicked the Buy button next to the picture which wasn't an Ipad, and had the word Samsung on it, and was probably next to a phrase such as "Samsung Galaxy Tab" in big letters where a product name ought to be, then reviewed the order and saw that it said "Samsung Galaxy Tab" where an order for an Ipad would have the word "Ipad" and somehow thought they were buying an Ipad then they're not the "ordinary observer" to which the law refers. The only question I have is a what point they noticed it wasn't an Ipad.

A fake rolex attempts to be mistaken for a rolex. Galaxy Tab clearly does not try to be mistaken for an Ipad.