Are the press too busy with their mouths full of Apple's balls to cover the trial fairly?

[Narradisall]

Oh, they finally did it.

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

I like how they still manage to suggest 'we're being made to say it doesn't infringe... but it kinda does guys...'

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by Narradisall

Oh, they finally did it.

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

I like how they still manage to suggest 'we're being made to say it doesn't infringe... but it kinda does guys...'

I'm pretty certain the judge will have discretion in deciding if Apple complied with their ruling.

This "apology" won't make any friends.

[Narradisall]

They were legally obliged to post that 'apology' by the UK court ruling. Part of it was they had to take out and ad saying they did not infringe on the patents.

[MagGnome]

Wait, that is the apology they were supposed to post? Wow...

[jeffbax]

Haha, that was awesome.

Legally obligated burn.

[boratika]

Originally Posted by Serapth

I'm pretty certain the judge will have discretion in deciding if Apple complied with their ruling.

Funny you should say.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by boratika

Funny you should say.

Yeah, not exactly surprising. I am amazed at the ongoing petulance from Apple. Nice to see when they don't have home court advantage ( AKA, a judge and jury in their pocket ), they can't get away with their bullshit.

[Narradisall]

Hahaha, yeah. I came here to post just that. Surprisinly the judge wasn't too pleased that the statement was 'inaccurate'.

[PathMaster]

Apple can go screw: Apple offers to pay Google $1 per device

Motorola feels that Apple is infringing on several FRAND patents that have to do with how every smartphone in existence connects to WiFi and cellular networks. Since Apple makes smartphones, and Google is looking to use their newly acquired Motorola as a weapon, the two companies are only a few days away from the courtroom. Apple has placed an offer in a filing to the US District Court of $1 per device moving forward

I hope Moto/Google gets the $2.25 per device they are looking for and even if there is to be a compromise, more than $1.

[MagGnome]

I would be quite surprised if Apple charged only $1 per device for licensing the patents they hold.

[Serapth]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

I would be quite surprised if Apple charged only $1 per device for licensing the patents they hold.

Be careful there. FRAND patents aren't regular patents.

That and Apple doesn't really have any real patents.

[MagGnome]

Eh, whatever. The system goes way over my head.

[Tel Prydain]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Eh, whatever. The system goes way over my head.

As I understand it, if you invent something useful at the cost of billions of R&D (like, say, a whole new way to do mobile data) – the courts tell you it’s too awesome to keep to yourself and you have to share it with everyone for a tiny pittance.
But if you copyright some graphical gimmick (like, for instance, the way a photo ‘bounces’ when you scroll to its edge), you then get to sue everyone for billions of dollars.

Seems fair.

[Narradisall]

Haven't apple been made to pay like $2.50 now anyway?

Seems like a lot of the rulings are starting to go against them now.

PS: Yes, the system is nuts.

[jeffbax]

Originally Posted by Tel Prydain

As I understand it, if you invent something useful at the cost of billions of R&D (like, say, a whole new way to do mobile data) – the courts tell you it’s too awesome to keep to yourself and you have to share it with everyone for a tiny pittance.
But if you copyright some graphical gimmick (like, for instance, the way a photo ‘bounces’ when you scroll to its edge), you then get to sue everyone for billions of dollars.

Seems fair.

There's kind of a difference between a standards essential patent like 3G/4G that is owned by a consortium (similar to MPEG-4) and something you can't go with out if you are trying to make a phone, and some of the ones Apple is asserting.

I would say some of Apple's claims are pretty stupid, but others are also quite valid. Apple largely invented modern touch computing when they reinvented the phone and created the tablet market. If they agree that they did invent so much, they will fight tooth and nail otherwise it's almost implied surrender.

As for what Apple pays (Motorola?) I think the beef there is that Motorola wants a much larger percent for the iPhone to license it's wireless tech, whereas for others it licenses a far cheaper fee. Apple's beef is that this is

1) not fair considering it is a standards essential tech that no phone can operate without
2) not fair based upon the market value that motorola licenses it to others

[PathMaster]

Ah, but Apple ignored the original patent and willfully used the tech. At least that is the gist of what I have heard. I do admit I have not read a lot on this particular issue, beyond the initial article from Ars.

[Tel Prydain]

The arrogance of a company demanding that other people’s patent rights be ignored while flailing their own about is actually astounding.
I’m not fan of the patent system, but such clear double standards borders on the surreal.

I would say some of Apple's claims are pretty stupid, but others are also quite valid. Apple largely invented modern touch computing when they reinvented the phone and created the tablet market. If they agree that they did invent so much, they will fight tooth and nail otherwise it's almost implied surrender.

Were as Motorola actually invented their tech.

Originally Posted by jeffbax

As for what Apple pays (Motorola?) I think the beef there is that Motorola wants a much larger percent for the iPhone to license it's wireless tech, whereas for others it licenses a far cheaper fee. Apple's beef is that this is

"Everyone"?
Why wouldn't your offer a discount to your partners?

Originally Posted by jeffbax

1) not fair considering it is a standards essential tech that no phone can operate without
2) not fair based upon the market value that motorola licenses it to others

1) Cant’ operate without because… the other guys came up with something better and built it?
I mean, I grant you that given setting up their own proprietary technology wouldn’t be easy. But at the end of the day, the other companies created those technologies at their own expense and now Apple think they should be allowed to utilise it because… they just really want to?

(EDIT - Just FYI, the two patents at stake here, one is around Wifi and the other is around video-streaming, not around the 4G network, and hardly compulsory. Having said that, I think the same argument still works for the 4G network argument… Samsung invented the LTE stuff, they should be allowed to control it – pay up, use 3g or invent something better.)

2) Looks like the court has tossed Apple’s argument out… for now at least.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/App...gle,18934.html

[Serapth]

There is where Apple is a bit on the fucked side, which is why starting this war was an epically stupid move.

They don't really invent anything, they refine. Nothing about the i(anything) was really revolutionary, it was a matter of refinement. The tech behind touch and tablet devices was already pretty well established by the likes of Palm, Microsoft and others. The actual hardware patents, thats not the kind of stuff Apple does, or atleast, hasn't been for a very long time. Ironically, there strongest most defensible patents in this area would be back in the Apple Newt days. But back in those days, the USPTO wasn't the circus it is now, so they wont have a gigantic portfolio form then.

[Bone]

I thought some of their patents WERE from the Newton... handwriting recognition at least. But yeah, definitely they are the company of refining and packaging existing ideas.

[MagGnome]

I am so glad their suit was thrown out. Hopefully they continue to lose their silly lawsuits. Maybe the suits at Apple will realize that suing their former and/or current tech partners is a bad idea.