back to article Judge rejects Apple's calls for Samsung censure

Apple's demand that Samsung be censured for releasing evidence that had been struck out of the two companies' patent battle has been rejected by the presiding judge. Apple had asked Judge Lucy Koh to sanction the lawyers involved in Samsung's decision to send evidence that had been filed too late for the trial proceedings to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Carlos TuTu III

    Of course...

    "I absolutely believe it's had an impact on our sales," he said.

    Yes, competition has a tendency to have such an effect...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Of course...

      Yup. These guys should be laughed out of town.

      It just shows how much protection some companies expect from the state nowadays. The free market? We were for it before we were against it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Of course...

        They expect protection just like you would if you worked hard on a product only for a competitor to produce an almost identical looking product reducing your sales.

        You're obviously not in business, my brother is and has had some of his designs copied by the larger companies he is trying to compete with.

        1. MrXavia
          FAIL

          Re: Of course...

          If Apple cant compete in a world where similar LOOKING devices are sold, then they clearly are not producing good devices..

          Clothes are a good analogy, when a top designer produces a collection, the high street copies it...yet people still buy expensive clothes because they are high quality, yet cheap imitations are often commonly found, these look similar but are not fakes pretending to be designer.

          The same goes for phones, Samsung released phones in a similar STYLE to Apple, but the devices are different hardware and software, so HOW are they copying? also their phones look Evolutionary from the older phones i've seen, not a direct rip off of apple. What apple has patented should NEVER have been allowed to be patented, how can you patent such a basic feature...

          1. ZeroP
            Thumb Up

            @MrXavia Re: Of course...

            I concur, having sold both iPhones and Samsung Galaxy Models S-S3, as well as Galaxy Tabs, I don't see the likeness beyond the general shape. The Nexus lines even less so. Vocal Apple fans still have loads of evidence to actually cite (for once) before parroting the "wholesale copying" angle they keep parading about.

            I HAVE had people mix the generic name of tablet with iPad, but I make sure to clarify where there is any doubt. If that's Apple's version of losing sales, they're not doing too great a job of being distinctive over generic design.

            Still waiting for Apple to sue Intel as another one of their suppliers for promoting a similar rival to their Macbooks...

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Of course...

            Actually generally the high street copies are exactly the same as the designer clothes, not a difference. My mum used to work in one of the few UK factories. Effectively they just had a single line making trousers. At the final point that line would be split into several others.

            The several others would have the branding put on, tags, and then packed separately and shipped to different companies. So it's not so much every other company ripping them off, it's the designer themselves. They design it, license it under their name, and then sell off other unbranded versions to cheaper retail outlets even though its the exact same product.

            Same with food at the supermarket. Generally the stores own is from the same place as heinz / kellogs etc, just slightly lower quality batch.

            But I agree, apple shouldn't be allowed to patent rounded corners. I mean I have an old phone from the 90's one of the massive nokia housebricks. It has rounded corners, sadly though it isn't a touch screen so it's a completely different product.

            1. Vic

              Re: Of course...

              > Generally the stores own is from the same place as heinz / kellogs etc, just slightly lower quality batch.

              This is absolutely *not* true when it comes to Kelloggs. They refuse to make foods for anyone else.

              Other manufacturers do quite often just package their standard product in the supermarkets' foil/boxes.

              Vic.

        2. Chet Mannly

          Re: Of course...

          "They expect protection just like you would if you worked hard on a product only for a competitor to produce an almost identical looking product reducing your sales."

          The phones were not at all identical apart from the basic rectangular shape which is dictated by using a rectangular screen, which touch screen phones and PDA's had been using for at least a decade before Apple claim they invented that look.

          Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor, they just get on with the job of competing, which Apple should be doing instead of spending all this money to keep competitor's stock off the shelves.

          I mean why not sue every Android manufacturer then? In terms of form factor the differences between all smartphones are mere nuances around a rectangular screen.

          Apple are only going after Samsung because they have been successful.

          1. p3ngwin1

            Re: Of course...

            "Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor..."

            I wish that were true :(

            http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apple-patents-the-macbook-airs-wedge-design-bad-news-for-ultrabook-makers/

            1. dougal83

              Re: Of course...

              ""Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor..."

              I wish that were true :(

              http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apple-patents-the-macbook-airs-wedge-design-bad-news-for-ultrabook-makers/"

              Asus should probably start an injunction on MacBook Air then. That would be hillarious. :)

              http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Superior_Mobility/ASUS_ZENBOOK_UX31E/

            2. Chet Mannly

              Re: Of course...

              ""Its not like someone is claiming no one else can use the laptop form factor..."

              I wish that were true :(

              http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apple-patents-the-macbook-airs-wedge-design-bad-news-for-ultrabook-makers/"

              What a f*****g joke. The US patent system has a lot to answer for.

              Typing this on a Macbook Pro - I think it will be the last Apple product I buy on principle...

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Down

          Re: Of course...

          Apple "worked hard", did you say?

          "The files contains a snippet of a deposition by former Apple industrial designer Shin Nishibori who said that Apple’s design chief Jonathan Ive told him to create a phone inspired by Sony’s designs. “If Sony were to make an iPhone, what would it be like?” Nishibori then goes on to comment on some designs for an Apple phone that he says were created “based on my own thoughts or my understanding of Sony-like designs.”"

    2. LarsG
      Meh

      Re: Of course...

      The Judge is just showing impartiality, while she makes a quick call on her....

      iPhone.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Of course...

      There's fair competition and then there's producing clones.

      Nobody wants one market leader followed by a load of "me too" products that look similar.

      1. mrfill
        FAIL

        Re: Of course...

        This doesn't seem to be the case in the world of cameras, MPVs, aeroplanes, televisions and many other products. I suspect a lot of people like the idea of several similar products to choose from. Having a choice of one does rather smack of a Stalinist ideology and rather flies in the face of the idea that competition is a good thing

        1. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

          Re: Of course...

          Having a choice of one does rather smack of a Stalinist ideology

          A choice of one (aka Hobson's choice) strikes me more as being a Fordist ideology. Goes to show that a monopoly can form under political systems of either extreme, I guess.

      2. Chet Mannly

        Re: Of course...

        "There's fair competition and then there's producing clones."

        How is a Samsung a clone - I can hold it any way I want and it still maintains reception :-)

      3. Morrie Wyatt
        Stop

        Re: Of course...

        It's absolutely ridiculous!

        I have a desktop calculator at work, the design of which is a rectangle with rounded corners, with the buttons being squares and rectangles, once again with rounded corners. It's other innovative feature is that the icons (read "Buttons") are below the screen!

        It uses mechanical buttons rather than a touch screen, but in terms of basic design appearance, the iPhone is nothing more than an expensive knockoff of a calculator that I have had for over a decade.

        Apple's use of "Design Patents" is an example of patent abuse at it's worst. It should never have been granted in the first place, and the granting examiner should be fitted out for a white cane immediately!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yet again

      The vitriolic Androids get on their high horses and pontificate and postulise on the de-merits of the Apple Empire.

      I suppose I should not be surprised, maturity is definately not a factor to be concerned about here.

      1. Chet Mannly

        Re: Yet again

        "The vitriolic Androids get on their high horses and pontificate and postulise on the de-merits of the Apple Empire."

        So you think companies should be able to patent rectangles then?

        Nothing wrong with the "Empire" as you call it, I wouldn't have a problem with Apple taking action if it was a genuine invention - this is just frivolous.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: Of course...

      "He did acknowledge that Apple bought phones from the competition and analyzed them, but said this was largely to sort out how to design antennas and avoid dropped calls"

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh IC said the Blynde Mann.

      I suppose they coiled their antenna's clockwise while the people they stole the ideas... ummm I mean reverse engineered.... No I mean... ummm merely looked at the competitions phones - fully assembled of course... yeah well the competition coiled their antennas anti-clockwise...

      Well I suppose that all comes down to how you insert the antenna's into the phone... as to which way the antenna is coiled... but there is a difference and we made sure that we made sure, ummm..... the antennas were not ummm...... copied, stolen or reverse engineered... and the coiling went in the opposite direction.....

      Ummmmmm

      (bullshit artist)

  2. Ian Emery Silver badge
    WTF?

    Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

    "to sort out how to design antennas and avoid dropped calls"

    1. Caltharian

      Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

      Does this mean that Apple have admitted to Reverse engineering??

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

        Everyone does it, they all tear down rivals products and see what they've done and work out the cost of the product in parts.

        In the 80s at trade shows some of the Japanese companies would take apart the display computers while nobody was looking.

        Many of the patents are on the process and what a part is trying to achieve. Such simple parts are unlikely to be protect-able.

        1. M Gale

          Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

          I still remember working the tills at PC World, and some chap comes over with a Nintendo DS. As the script demands, I ask "business or personal use?" A slight smirk, because who would buy a games console for business use?

          Imagine my surprise when it was for business use. Then while capturing details for the VAT reciept, I find out it's being bought by a director for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe?

          So no, Apple buying competitor's phones doesn't surprise me. However, tearing down phones to look at antenna designs doesn't seem to have paid off all that well, it must be said!

      2. John70

        Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

        "Does this mean that Apple have admitted to Reverse engineering??"

        It looks like it to me.

        And don't companies have something in the small print about not reverse engineering their stuff?

        They need to find out which products were reversed engineered and sue Apple.

    2. stanimir

      Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

      That only comes to prove: rounded corners totally triumphs over the essence of a phone - calls and communication.

      So basically it is: we stole the communication part but we 'invented' the rectangle w/ rounded corners - exactly the same as a credit card!

    3. hplasm Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Yeah, RIGHT!!!!!

      They didn't learn much, did they?

  3. Wang N Staines

    Haha

    First they copied sony-style design. Now they copied technical designs from other phones.

    hahaaa, I was lead to believe that Apple pull all theirs designs from the creative minds.

    Seem like the only contribution made by Apple to the smartphones was marketing!!!!

    1. admiraljkb

      Re: Haha

      ... and then they put Samsung chips at the heart of it and gave it a Samsung screen as well. There's enough Samsung parts in an iPhone that its almost a Samsung.

      Apple's attorney isn't helping their cause by pointing out the marketing aspect ONLY. Apple's contribution is marketing, UI and API's, but it is telling on Apple being a marketing company rather than an engineering/innovating company.

  4. Medium Dave
    WTF?

    Wait, what?

    "I will not let any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do."

    Presumably she means other theatrics and sideshows.

    Panem et circenses...

  5. Velv Silver badge
    FAIL

    Evidence

    Evidence is EVIDENCE - its existence does not rely on being filed on time.

    One must question the judge's decision to exclude it then expect a jury not to be able to view it. OK, so perhaps a financial penalty should be placed on Samsung for submitting it late, however should the case go in Apple's favour the exclusion of the evidence gives grounds for Samsung to appeal.

    And ultimately the winners are the lawyers

  6. heyrick Silver badge
    WTF?

    Hang on a mo...

    "While four jurors said they had seen the reports, this wasn't seen as a problem."

    What's wrong with this picture... [hint: my emphasis]

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Hang on a mo...

      Not that much when you consider there are a total of TEN jurors. IOW, the potential corruption only covers a minority of the jurors, and I haven't heard anything concerning alternates. Since this is a civil case, only a majority is necessary to find in favor of one or the other (it's in criminal cases where the unanimity rule applies).

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Hang on a mo...

        Four out of ten works out at 40%, which means the way figures are calculated these days, nearly half of the jurors failed to follow a simple instruction regarding not viewing reporting of the case and its side-issues.

      2. Steve Todd

        Re: Hang on a mo...

        Firstly it's 4 out of 9 (one of the original 10 has been excused)

        Secondly only 6 of the 9 get to vote (3 are alternates in case any of the main 6 have to withdraw)

        We don't know how many of those 4 were alternates or primary. Worst case it could be 2/3rds of the voting jury.

    2. Vic

      Re: Hang on a mo...

      > four jurors said they had seen the reports

      Did they claim they had *read* the reports?

      They might have seen just the headline, realised it was stuff they should not have been reading about, and moved on.

      Vic.

  7. jobeus

    Incredibly balanced article.

    I like how you have all the comments from Samsung too, balanced against Apple's POV. Er, wait....

  8. Mark 65

    Seriously?

    "In a busy day's testimony, Apple's marketing boss Phil Schiller took to the stand to defend his company's right to own such design features as a tablet with rounded corners. "

    I like Apple products but I have no idea how this guy could have done that and kept a straight face. FFS, it's just plain childish.

  9. honkhonk34

    "I will not let any theatrics or sideshow distract us from what we are here to do."

    Which is what, Judge Koh? Do your best to protect an American company from fair competition?

  10. Keep Refrigerated
    Boffin

    Can someone point me...

    To a forum post where a fanboi is asking why he can't get siri, facetime, iTunes or something similar to load on his Samsung branded iPad or iPhone?

    If they can, then yes I will believe that Apple lost a sale.

    On the other hand, I don't own iAnything but did buy a Mac for my wife for Christmas so there's one extra sale they can deduct from there 'lost sales' net figure.

    1. Ilsa Loving
      Thumb Down

      Re: Can someone point me...

      One, that wasn't what he was talking about. Two, whats the likelyhood that someone who can't tell the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy, is going to use web forums?

      1. Martin 47

        Re: Can someone point me...

        I think you have forgotten that there is no lower limit to the stupidity of web users

      2. Craigness

        Re: Can someone point me...

        Steve Todd can't tell the difference, and he posts on these forums.

        1. dougal83
          Thumb Down

          Re: Can someone point me...

          No real need for a personal attack. He's entitled to his opinion.

        2. Steve Todd
          FAIL

          @Craigness

          Ah, now THAT's an ad hominem attack, you might want to explain it to "Mark ."

          You're trying to put words in my mouth I see. All I've ever said is that Samsung's designs are close enough to confuse a non technically literate user and allow them to be swayed by a salesman in the direction of the cheaper device.

          1. John McCallum

            Re: @Craigness

            Do samsung offer a beter deal to retailers then or is apple as tight as a gnats chuff.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Craigness

              Sadly, and I must remain anon, but yes it is true, I work for a national company, our sales commission changes month by month, at the moment we are being told to push for the S3 our reward is a 12% commission on every phone we sell whereas the average for the others is between 5%-8%.

              Samsung are incentivising it and also as a prize the top S3 sales will get an all expenses paid 4 night stay for two in Las Vegas.

              Now you know why it is selling so well.

              1. Chet Mannly

                Re: @Craigness

                "Samsung are incentivising it...Now you know why it is selling so well."

                Nothing stopping Apple from offering even better incentives than Samsung.

                Its called competition.

                1. Steve Todd
                  Stop

                  Re: @Craigness

                  I don't think you're quite following the argument.

                  If Samsung had their own distinctive model that consumers wouldn't confuse with Apple's version (and to be fair, the Galaxy SIII is quite different in appearance to the iPhone) then its down to sales tactics and advertising.

                  If on the other hand they have a model that is very similar to Apple's then they are unfairly piggybacking on Apple's sales and marketing campaign. In this case Apple shouldn't HAVE to compete by discounting, giving out spiffs etc.

                  Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line, with features copied from them and at a lower price. Add to that they give dealers a bigger discount and offer salesmen incentives to sell their sets rather than the equivalent Samsung. Don't you think Samsung would be more than a little P'd off and would take LG to court?

                  1. M Gale

                    Re: @Craigness

                    Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line...

                    LG

                    Samsung

                    Sony

                    Sharp

                    Panasonic

                    JVC

                    Fujitsu

                    Just saying.

                    1. Steve Todd

                      What part of "top of the range"

                      confuses you guys? Not a boring mid range box, something like this

                      http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UE46ES8000UXXU

                      compared to

                      http://www.lg.com/uk/cinema3d/cinema3d/overview.jsp

                      (and I'm sure the fandoids will only see rectangular screen and no other details)

                      1. Chet Mannly

                        Re: What part of "top of the range"

                        "What part of "top of the range" confuses you guys?"

                        You are obviously missing the joke that Apple's claims of violating a patent on rectangles costs them sales makes about as much sense as Samsung patenting rectangular televisions and making similar claims.

                        What part of that joke confuses you?

                    2. MrZoolook
                      Paris Hilton

                      Re: @Craigness

                      Quote: Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line...

                      With or without wi-fi connectability?

                      Paris because you mentioned Fujitsu... which sounds like a martial-arts discipline for a certain body part, of which hers gets plenty of practice!

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    @Steve Todd

                    > Imagine if LG produced TV sets all but identical to Samsung's top-of-the-range line, with features copied from them and at a lower price.

                    Since we're in the market for a TV I can inform use that - at least in our market segment - the products from these two companies are well-nigh indistinguishable and we will probably buy whichever is cheaper.

                    In fact I'm hoping for some competitive cost-cutting to break out... but back to your example, if that happened Samsung would have at least three options:

                    1) if their product has a loyal user base, keep the same price and make more profit on fewer units (probably resulting the barand being perceived as more upmarket), while watching the discounting competitor lose money or make a very thin margin

                    2) if they have loads of cash in the bank, use some of it to boost sales and take market share from the competitor.

                    3) reduce the price of a product for which the R&D, tooling, and, marketing are sunk costs (maybe an older iteration of the product) to undercut LG's discounted product and steal its potential customer base.

                    As far as I am aware, all 3 of these options are open to Apple (and they have used #3 to maintain the dominance of the ipad brand?).

                    The great advantage an original has over the derivative product is that the derivative is always one generation behind. But if there is little or no geniune innovation, the derivatives will catch up quickly.

                  3. Mark .

                    Re: @Craigness

                    No, I'd be glad that a company is able to produce a top-of-the-range product at a lower price, and I'd praise them for passing that price saving onto the consumer, rather than using it to profit. If that model means that they also have more money to engage in marketing, then good for them. Especially if the company with the overpriced products has adverts everywhere, that no one seems to have a problem with.

              2. Mark .

                Re: @Craigness

                Well, heaven forbid that Samsung be allowed to use marketing, that they pay for, to help sell their immensely popular products.

                But that's nothing compared to the amount of coverage Apple seem to get - every phone store I see still has massive banners for the old Iphone 4S and Ipad, whilst the far better selling Samsung get less coverage, even with a more recently released flagship phone. Meanwhile there's all the free advertising Apple get, from the endless media coverage, the constant "on my/your Iphone" product placement, the "get this on your Iphone" ads from other companies, the obvious Apple logo you see the few times you see someone with their product, to everyone who has the "posted on my Iphone" advert when they post to the Internet. Not to mention, the obligitory token Iphone owner, who has to tell everyone they meet that they have an Iphone.

          2. Ian Bremner
            FAIL

            Re: @Craigness

            In what topsy turvy bizarro world do you live in where a salesman tries to get you to buy something cheaper?

            1. Steve Todd
              Stop

              Re: @Craigness

              Given that Samsung have a history of giving out "spliffs", incentives to individual salesmen for meeting sales targets, then this is a very real problem.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. Steve Todd

                Re: @Craigness

                Oh, and as best as I can tell (the numbers aren't published) Samsung do offer higher retail margins than Apple. Sales based on what the retailer want to sell you because of higher profit/sales incentives aren't good for the customer unless they understand that they aren't getting impartial advice.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                WTF?

                Re: @Craigness

                Re: @Craigness

                "Given that Samsung have a history of giving out "spliffs", incentives to individual salesmen for meeting sales targets, then this is a very real problem."

                Somehow I don't think its Samsung salesmen smoking spliffs.......

                Do you really love a BRAND that much! Suppose $600oddM CAN buy the weak minded, so the Apple advertising budget is justified.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can someone point me...

      I (is that breach of copyright?) didn't buy my wife an ipad for Xmas, nor did she buy me one.

      That's 2 lost sales - Samsung should be destroyed.

  11. TechnicalBen Silver badge
    Trollface

    Can Samsung...

    ... not just release every phone as a work of "parody"?

    At this point the court case practically is.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what

    "Apple's marketing boss Phil Schiller took to the stand to defend his company's right to own such design features as a tablet with rounded corners."

    Most of the phones I've had had round corners. Some people would bitch if they were hung with a brand new rope.

    1. Mikey
      Trollface

      Re: So what

      If rounded corners make a copy, then I guess my old N900 is a copy of the iPhone too... black, rounded corners, touchscreen... hell, it even has almost the same CPU (Cortex A8 with a slightly different GPU). The fact that it and the Samsung phones run a completely different OS isn't enough of a barrier, I would posit.

      I'd better get the file out, and make the corners flat again...

      1. Mikey
        Facepalm

        Re: So what

        Gah, re-reading the post makes it sound like I'm in favour of Apple... not the intended result. Wheres the damn edit function, El Reg?

  13. Chris 171
    WTF?

    Only apple....

    If I read this right, then some bloke with a straight face said 'they copied our shape and we bought their phones to reverse engineer their antenna designs'.

    Corporate insanity case study anyone?

    Bloody hell.....

  14. MrRtd

    too late?

    "evidence that had been filed too late for the trial proceedings"

    OK, I admit I'm not very familiar with the specifics of trial procedures, but the idea that evidence however relevant can be ignored because it's filed too late seems to me a major flaw. And if that evidence isn't allowed during the trial, then doesn't it make sense that the party with the new evidence could demand an appeal or new trial?

  15. SJRulez

    When will Apple realize that there is more to selling products than how it looks.....

    If your whole case is about whether you lost sales because somebody designed a product that looks the same then I would be seriously concerned about the need to have 'technical' engineers being paid thousands of pounds and yet admitting to breakdown other peoples phones to see how they antenna work.

    Surely if your product is so good people would be saying well the samsung looks the same but the iPhone has this and that, or vice verse. It should be about which has the best tech not which looks good in your pocket!

  16. Archivist

    Common sense

    I used to work for a TV manufacturer. We would always buy our competitor's models to compare. Any designer who ignores the rest of the market won't last long. But here's the rub, if we'd actually copied features, we'd have been a year behind. It was more a matter of trending.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "considerable risk", RDF style

    "The company also took a considerable risk with products like the iPad, which launched into a sector that was considered moribund by many in the industry, he explained."

    The RDF, argued in court.

    There were plenty of tablets (or media players as they were called then), such as those from Archos. Android tablets appeared before Apple ones. In general, handheld computing devices flourished and exploded in mainstream popularity in the 2000s, the most obvious example being smartphones, but also things like PDAs. They were just called different names.

    The only thing considered "moribund" was the idea of a fully functional PC in tablet form - but sorry, the Ipad isn't that either. If anyone is first with that, it'll be the likes of the Microsoft Surface, or perhaps Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 which is at least striving towards general purpose computing, rather than a locked down media player for consumption.

    Also of note is the achievement of a mobile PC, realised in 2007 with ASUS's revolutionary EEE PC, creating a whole new market of netbooks.

    There was little risk for Apple, less than what most companies have to deal with. As with phones, they launched into an existing market created by other companies, and unlike their competition, had the benefit of vast amounts of media hype and free advertising, which appeared even before the product was announced, let alone released. With the billions they have in the bank to back it up, the Ipad must go down in history as one of the least risky product launches in tech history.

    If Apple consider that risky - or risky that companies might dare to release competing products - that says it all.

  18. MrZoolook
    Paris Hilton

    Correction:

    He did acknowledge that Apple bought phones from the competition and analyzed them, but said this was largely to sort out how to avoid antennas and design dropped calls.

    Fixed! And Paris because its not her calls that get frequently dropped!

  19. cortland

    -- Apple's research showed that iPhone users were more likely to buy other Apple hardware in future, --

    Apple would prefer that. Indeed, it seems they want to make it *necessary."

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019