Push Email Suspended On iPhones In Germany 164
New submitter elashish14 tips this news, snipped from Ars Technica: "Apple has been forced to disable push e-mail delivery for iCloud and MobileMe users in Germany this week. The move is thanks to a recent injunction awarded to Motorola as part of the ongoing patent dispute between the two smartphone makers.... The patent at issue relates to older pager designs, but Motorola was able to convince a German court that it applied to Apple's implementation of push e-mail that syncs across devices via iCloud. The injunction went into effect on Thursday of this week, requiring Apple to disable push e-mail syncing in Germany."
Truce (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet another way the consumer is being raped by this senseless patent war. Call a truce you loopy money hungry bastards..
Re:Truce (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad that their paying customers end up taking most of the hits at the moment, but i think all these petty squabbles between massive corporations are the best way towards positive patent/copyright reform.
Courts the world over seem to be used not to settle wrongs but simply as a scoring system. Corporation A wins a couple lawsuits and injunctions in Europe, Corp B wins some in the states, Corp A fights back and gets some in Australia, Corp B then tries its luck in Asia. I don't have any figures, but i wouldn't be surprised if all these corporations put twice as much money in their legal department as they do in R&D. Which kinda makes me wonder if we can still consider them in the technology sector.
I can't believe some judge hasn't just said "enough of this shit" and sentenced the board members of all corporations involved to a mandatory year in pre-school.
Rulings like these, that disable features that many customers rely on, are guaranteed to annoy the regular mom&pop users (who generally consider copyright/patent related discussion to be irrelevant to them). Combined with the people in the tech sector who actually still try to develop things, the hippies and the nerd crowd that might create a large enough group to cause some uproar and start the process of redesigning the laws regarding IP.
IP laws prevent progress (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IP laws prevent progress (Score:5, Insightful)
I can not even blame that industry for trying. I can only blame the people that voted for those who allow it.
I'm getting really tired of this cop-out. "You can't blame the company, they exist just to make money!"
Yes, I fucking well can. Companies are made of people, people have moral compasses; if dickheads want to try this shit then they should be lynched for being immoral (aka evil) bastards. This is the Nuremberg defense all over again, "I was just doing my job!" — guess what, asshat? Power comes with responsibility, you don't get to have your money/power and then ignore all the externalities you created.
It only takes one to make war (Score:4, Insightful)
Your non-violence attitude is fine when all you care about is not starting a war yourself. Doesn't do squat when someone else starts beating up on you.
That's what's going on here. This particular spate of patent fights was triggered when St Jobs decided to go all holy war on Android and Google and won injunctions against phones which had rounded corners among other stupid patents. Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and other Android makers got caught in the cross fire and shot back. Don't get me wrong, Apple fan-boys: everyone plays the same game, it's just this particular mini-war which was started by St Jobs.
The fault is with governments that make money from issuing as many patents as possible and lawyers who make money from fighting as many patent battles as possible. It's quite evident that "obvious to anyone skilled in the arts" and "for a limited time" mean nothing. Patents would have a purpose if they were actually limited to innovative clever not-so-obvious features and there were only, say, one thousandth the number we have now.
But it's also obvious that governments and lawyers have an interest in not limiting patents to the truly innovative, and we'd be better off with no patents whatsoever. Innovative companies would always have a lead in clever designs, and early adopters would be glad to pay a premium for that and quality. Copycat companies would always be playing catchup and have to charge less for mass production.
The world would be a better place if all those patent lawyers and government bureaucrats had to find useful productive work instead of being parasites who gum up the works.
Re:It only takes one to make war (Score:2)
I disagree (and agree with #39157489 [slashdot.org]). "Parasites who gum up the works" -- and I know lawyers and government employees who most definitely do not fall into that category -- will stay as long as we accept them as a necessary evil. The system will remain broken as long as we continue to say "OK, that's how the world works, we're stuck with it". As long as we think "Nothing I do will make any difference".
What does this mean? It means avoiding buying products made by companies who have serious ethical lapses -- or at a minimum, getting as much use out of them as you can before getting rid of them, as avoiding companies like that can be pretty difficult. Personally, yes I have a smartphone made in China, but just like the last one, I won't get rid of it until it drops dead, or I can give it as a hand-me-down to someone else whose phone has died or doesn't have one at all. And I have a cheapie one, not something that's produced a massive profit margin for the company who made it.
The "I won't act until everyone else does" line (or "I won't act until legislation forces us all to") is a great way to sound sanctimonious without having to do anything. If you think what's happening is wrong, don't do it yourself and don't contribute to it. Sure, it may mean you have a slightly lower quality of life than your neighbour, but I'd prefer that to getting angry with "other people" who are doing exactly the same thing I would -- that's just hypocrisy.
Re:It only takes one to make war (Score:2)
Is it your claim that Android businesses should not strike back with their own patent claims after St Jobs went on the warpath?
Are you saying they should sit back and wait while hordes of angry ethical customers desert Apple and flock to Android and save their bacon?
Not only is that bonkers, your ethical consumers are independent of self-defense. I myself steer clear of St Jobs products because I think his single minded control freakery produces inflexible inferior products. But that's nothing to do with your silly business plan, if that is what you are trying to say. Ethical buying has nothing to do with self-defense. I abhor murder, but if a friend shoots a burglar, I will say "Good on ya, mate" and pat him in the back for exercising the natural right of self-defense.
Re:It only takes one to make war (Score:2)
I don't know what Android businesses (the big, big, big ones who are in this fight) should do but I don't get to decide anyway. I don't think ethical customers leaving Apple will save them -- and I don't think things are as black and white as "Apple: unethical; Android handset manufacturers: ethical" anyway. But I'm going to avoid supporting what I see as bad behaviour. I know that my individual action won't make any difference by itself. But I'm going to do it anyway.
And oh wow, I'm not going to pat my mate on the back for shooting a burglar. That's not self-defense unless it looked like the burglar was going to kill my mate. But then I live in a country where hardly anyone has a gun, so it's a pretty unlikely situation anyway.
Re:It only takes one to make war (Score:2)
That is the lesson which has been learned by most companies, and especially by patent lawyers.
Re:IP laws prevent progress (Score:2)
Why not blame the industry that tried it? Do you blame the bank guards for failing if someone robs the bank? Do you find the 419 scammers blameless?
Re:Truce (Score:5, Interesting)
The weirdest thing about this is, that there are no software patents in Germany.
I guess that said software patents might qualify as "regular" patents since there are phones involved.
Re:Truce (Score:5, Informative)
You can patent the "push e-mail to device instead of polling" part, because it does not relate to software. You could implement it with manual labor and pidgeons and would still be violating the patent.
What you can't patent in Germany is algorithm, so a claim that says "push e-mail where the e-mail headers are processed via regular expressions" would no be valid.
what is stranger is that if the patent is very broad, it could be invalid because regular letters, faxes, teletypes, etc. have all been based on pushing the message to the receiver so there should be prior art.
Re:Truce (Score:3)
Re:Truce (Score:2)
You can patent the "push e-mail to device instead of polling" part, because it does not relate to software. You could implement it with manual labor and pidgeons and would still be violating the patent.
There isn't anything that a computer can do that can't be implemented with a sufficient number of people enacting some process manually. The most trivial example of this is to take every transistor in a CPU and tell somebody to raise their right hand whenever two other particular people have their right hands raised...
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Funny, the German wikipedia disagrees with you [slashdot.org]. To be clear, they don't say all software is patentable, but they do explain how computer-timed ignitions are patentable software.
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Why are you linking to a Slashdot story while making claims about the German Wikipedia?
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Re:Truce (Score:3)
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Hell no! Let those assholes who managed to lobby some faulty software patents through reap what they have sown. Let them go nuclear and hurt each other as bad as they can. And perhaps if enough consumers get hurt some people might start to question how did this happen.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Yet another way the consumer is being raped by this senseless patent war. Call a truce you loopy money hungry bastards..
Tell that to Apple.
None of this happened until they decided to start suing anyone with rounded corners, demanding injunctions rather then asking for reasonable licensing fees. Before then everyone negotiated with each other for use of their patents.
Re:Truce (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point? You , me and everyone here has "read" the verbose, archaic, purposely overdone and almost obfuscatory text of some patent or another. We want to know what the patent does using the hallowed principle of "If it's quacks, it's a duck".
Automatically 'pushing' messages from one computer to another is something a "practitioner skilled in the art" (mostly anyone here) can do and consider obvious.
So no, while I could be wrong, I concur with the guy you're responding to. And I haven't read it either
Re:Truce (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Truce (Score:3)
It's just the one computer (a pager) telling the server the status of a message ( it's been read), then the server automatically telling another pager (belonging to the same user) to mark the message as 'read'.
Like IMAP.
SAP GUI told users they had sessions logged on elsewhere, back in 2002.
http://sap.ittoolbox.com/groups/technical-functional/sap-basis/audit-of-multiple-logons-108489 [ittoolbox.com]
Obvious.
Re:Truce (Score:2)
If there is any justice, parent post really should exhonerate me from my -1 moderation.
Re:Truce (Score:5, Funny)
What is the point? You , me and everyone here has "read" the verbose, archaic, purposely overdone and almost obfuscatory text of some patent or another.
Yeah, whenever I read any patent, it reminds me of the faux contract [mschronicles.com] distributed with the amazing Guild of Thieves game by Magnetic Scrolls. :)
Re:Truce (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that's SMTP not any client side protocol. The client side is a different story.
I don't care about the outcome in this one. I only hope that it hurts badly for one side or the other. One thing seems to becoming obvious -- Germany is the new East Texas.
I just hope the families of various politicians are interrupted, annoyed or iritated by all of this so that attention to the issue. Politicians only care about what affects them and that's about the extent of it. They listen to the highest bidder after that and we already know who the highest bidders are. I only hope it "gets too stupid, even for the politicians to tolerate."
Re:Truce (Score:2)
I don't care about the outcome in this one. I only hope that it hurts badly for one side or the other. One thing seems to becoming obvious -- Germany is the new East Texas.
The outcome will be that the consumers will get the shaft.
Re:Truce (Score:3)
"push" email is fundamentally different from "push" web content.
Incoming phone calls & SMS messages don't get "broadcasted" to phones in the area -- the individual phones actively poll the network for incoming calls & SMS every couple of seconds. The phone broadcasts its poll request to the tower, and the tower replies back with a ~160-byte reply that indicates whether there's an incoming phone call, or the content of a text message, or a code that lets the phone know that there's content being pushed that's available to be fetched.
I'm not 100% sure about GSM networks, but on CDMA networks, the phone can poll for incoming calls/SMS faster & with less power than it takes to establish a full-blown active EVDO data session. I believe a similar situation exists with respect to legacy GSM vs UMTS/HSPA. SO... instead of taking the time and power to establish a data connection so the mail app can poll the mail server, push email allows the mail server to notify the mobile network that one or more new messages have arrived. The next time the phone polls the network for incoming calls, it gets a reply that means, "no incoming calls, no incoming SMS, but there's at least one new email waiting on the server". The phone gets the reply, sees the "new email" flag, and THEN launches the mail client, which brings up a full data connection and updates itself from the server.
In other words, instead of having to keep waking up the phone, establishing a full data connection, and keeping the phone awake long enough to poll the mail server, you can keep the phone mostly asleep, and wait until the network notifies you that there's a new message before going to the trouble of contacting the mail server itself.
"Push" in this context is also different from using persistent UDP sockets (the way IMAP NOTIFY does).
When in doubt as to whether or not something is "genuinely" push or not, it helps to look at the pushed payload itself. If the pushed payload is just a notification that something is waiting on the server, it's probably "real" push. On the other hand, if you're actively polling a server for the message itself, it's probably not "real" push.
Re:Truce (Score:2)
Like polling for messages? Just set the client to send a small packet every 60 seconds and the mail server to respond if there is.
That is not exactly a new idea and it is the mail client pulling.
Re:Truce (Score:2)
In for trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Motorola better hope their old pagers didn't have any rounded corners, or they'll get retroactively sued for predicting future designs.
Re:In for trouble (Score:2)
Why, did they hire Samsung's former product designer?
I wish (Score:2)
the patent office and companies to focus on really new things, not just playing expensive games with patents.
Re:I wish (Score:1)
Patent office is more or less rubber-stamping anything (sufficiently difficult to understand).
Any obvious erroneous patent that is discovered is simply refereed to as an single unfortunate incident where the patent examiner granted the patent incorrectly. The problem goes a bit deeper than that of course, but as long as the patent office can avoid looking at the real problem, the longer they can take pay checks (without having to consider moral implications).
Patents, much like copyright are a deal between the author/inventor and the general public. Patents, much like copyright is supposed to be beneficial for the general public.
Re:I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a really old and actually valid patent.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid nor wrong.
Re:I wish (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps Apple shouldn't have tried to kill off its competitors with patent trolling.
Re:I wish (Score:3)
Why is it valid in a place that does not recognize software patents when it's all about software?
How's this an insightful comment at all? Is it because it's anti-Apple? Because I don't see anything insightful here at all, just a completely unfounded claim.
only hope? not really. (Score:4, Informative)
invalidating the patent is not apples only hope.
they could, heaven forbid, licence the patent for actual money.
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:2)
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure Apple had a bucket load of old Motorola pagers in the room when they were designed the push software for the iPhone.
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm sure Apple had a bucket load of old Motorola pagers in the room when they were designed the push software for the iPhone.
Unlike copyright law, patent law doesn't require that you knew the patent for it to apply.
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:2)
Neither does copyright. Google George Harrison, MY Sweet Lord, and subconscious plagiarism
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:2)
The truly crazy thing about that one is is spent a decade in court and by the time a judgement was rendered, due to a series of unrelated transactions in the meanwhile, Harrison was effectively suing himself.
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:2)
Given that it was 3 notes, it may not have been plagiarism at all.
Re:only hope? not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
All the companies are just interested in making Apple sit down and shut the fuck up. None of this counter-lawsuit stuff started until Apple started to try and shut everyone else down. The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.
Then in comes Apple who decides they can just sue everyone else out of existence. They think they should be the only company other than maybe RIM who is allowed to produce a smartphone or tablet. No surprise it has raised the ire of all the other companies and they are now striking back.
They don't want money, they want Apple to stop suing. I'm not sure Apple will though, I think they are real scared. Apple's rise to their current mega corp status has all been about getting in to markets that nobody else is really having any success in and making it cool. This lets them sell their stuff with a massive profit margin due to no competition.
They did it with MP3 players first. They weren't the first company to make one, but they made them cool, made them a fashion accessory. Now everyone had to have one, but not just any one, an iPod. That has waned quite a bit these days, but no problem, because then they brought smartphones to consumers. Blackberry's were always business toys. The US government loves the things but they didn't sell so well on the consumer market. The iPhone made smartphones a thing to have and they did well there. Then of course they made tablets the new toy to have. Most people have no idea why they want one, but they want one.
However they don't seem to have a "what's next" and unlike the MP3 player situation, people are moving in on phones and tablets quicker than they are ready for. Android went from more or less an experiment to an extremely competent competitor in just a few years and has been selling really well. They see their market slipping, and have nowhere else to go.
So they are going sue happy, to try and keep everyone else out. If they can't, they risk losing their place of prominence, and no company wants that.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:2, Interesting)
This is incorrect. Android ate from Symbian's market, not iOS' (with RIM losing share to both). Not only that but Google has admitted in a hearing regarding its search monopoly that 2/3 of its mobile web hits come from iOS devices, and now InMobi is claiming that iOS has more mobile advertisement impressions than Android. For the first time iOS is actually in a tug-of-war with Android for market share, and it seems like iOS is winning, asn Android has actually been losing share whereas iOS continues to gain it.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not accounting for the usage habits of the buyers.
There are *no* ad-supported apps on my cell phone. None. Everything I have installed is either legitimately free, or it came with the phone. And I don't use mobile web at all. I'm on a flex data plan, and my usage is consistently in the bottom tier (25mb/mo). 100% of my data usage is e-mail, calendar, and contacts. I would not show up on either of those statistics. And yes, I have an Android device.
Considering that the iPhone is marketed as an internet-connected consumer device, specifically for the consumption of stuff on the web, I would be willing to lay odds that iPhone users consume more web, on average, than Android users. Sure, there will be aberrations on either platform, but ultimately I think the numbers will show that on the whole, iPhone users consume more data. That will naturally skew statistics that come from watching peoples' data use: that is, search hits and ad impressions.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:2)
You think Google should have just let themselves be at the mercy of Apple? Did you not read the stories of the deals they forced authors and Amazon into? I'm not saying inventing a whole new phone OS was necessarily the right or best answer but it was clear that were Apple left to dominate the market, they would have been several times worse than Microsoft ever were in the PC market.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:2)
Different cases. Apple has a store of their own, so it is natural to not want other business to use their platform to provide competitive services without sharing any of the revenue. They are, however, not in the advertisement business, and thus a partnership with Google would make all the sense here. With Apple providing the platform and Google providing the services, the combined result would be unbeatable and extremely beneficial to consumers.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:2)
All the companies are just interested in making Apple sit down and shut the fuck up
So the only evidence you have of this is a timeline in which Apple made the first move? Go ahead and project your own bias onto it but the more likely situation is that they are all money grabbing bastards the same as each other, including googlerola. The board have sanctioned this move because they think there is a competetive advantage to be had, not because they want play bitch slappin high fives.
In fact I am rooting for apple not because I am a fanboy (which I am) but because I find this cross licensing consolidation, that is just a club for the big boys, slightly disturbing. And the support of it on slashdot even more so.
Re:Ya I don't think anyone is interested in licens (Score:3)
The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.
Um. No.
http://flowingdata.com/2010/10/11/mobile-patent-lawsuits/ [flowingdata.com]
The _ENTIRE MOBILE INDUSTRY_ is suing each other like crazy right now. Stop pretending this is just Apple getting all up in everyone's faces and everyone pushing back valiantly against Apple - this is _THE ENTIRE MOBILE INDUSTRY_ going to war with each other.
And, for the record, it seems that Nokia is the most aggressive company out there, not Apple.
Please, for the love of gawd, if you're going to hate on Apple, at least base it on fact rather than made up garbage. Seriously.
Bollocks. (Score:3)
The other companies that made cellphones had occasional hissing matches with each other, as companies seem to like to do, but it would get resolved since they realized it was in their best interests. While they'd all like to be the one and only phone provider in the world, they know that isn't going to happen so they'll settle for cross licensing and so on.
Um. No.
http://flowingdata.com/2010/10/11/mobile-patent-lawsuits/ [flowingdata.com]
I really hate those infographics because they dumb down the scenarios so badly.
Plus that one is wrong, it doesn't even include Apple v Samsung or Apple v Motorola, both Motorola and Samsung's suits against Apple are counter suits.
The graphic lower down on that page explains that the majority of Nokia's suits are over LCD price fixing (so no shit they are suing multiple companies, it's part of the same fucking suit). But as I said, it does not even include the Apple v Samsung case that has garnered a lot of attention.
And, for the record, it seems that Nokia is the most aggressive company out there, not Apple.
For the record, that is bullshit.
If you bothered tor read the incorrect article you linked to, three out of the five Nokia suits are in relation to LCD price fixing, the same suit for three different companies. One of the remaining two is a counter suit against Apple. So that leaves the suit between Nokia and Qualcomm. The original Nokia V Apple [imore.com] was resolved with Apple paying Nokia license fees mid last year, license fees which Nokia had been chasing Apple for since it released the Iphone and Apple had been refusing to pay.
The big difference between Apple and other companies is that Apple is suing it's competitors to prevent them from competing. They aren't asking for reasonable license fees, chances are HTC, Samsung et al. would have paid the danegled to make Apple go away (it worked for Microsoft didn't it), but Apple didn't want this, Apple asked the courts for injunctions, not license fees, so dont act all butt hurt that now everyone else is doing that to Apple.
Germany is (Score:1)
the new US District Court of Eastern Texas.
Re:Germany is (Score:5, Insightful)
the new US District Court of Eastern Texas.
Actually, Moto has been negotiating with Apple over this patent since 2007--to no avail.
Generally, the German courts have been much more level headed than Eastern Texas.
In this particular case, the German court determined that Apple had been negotiating in bad faith, and thus, Moto was entitled to a special injunction (because of Apple's egregious/scofflaw behavior). When Apple saw the handwriting on the wall, they rushed to [the court to] "pay up", but the court said "too little, too late".
Considering how much of a patent bully Apple is, this is one of the few places where they've been properly spanked.
How could anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
After observing the antics of Apple, Samsung, and Motorola in the past year, in particular, how could anyone wind up still believing that patents and copyrights promote creation or indeed help anyone but the assignees? When does the true reform begin?
When does the true reform begin? (Score:2)
Re:How could anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Patents do work, but not in the current form. If it were up to me, I would tentatively approve a patent, make it public and ask if there is any reason this should not become be a patent. Based on the response, the patent can be approved or rejected.
Companies will advertise with patents, not tech (Score:2)
Soon companies will advertise their products with their patent folios, not their technology. As in:
"We do NOT have the best technology, but we have the BEST patents! So buy our phones, because if you buy from a competitor, we will shutdown their features, because we own the patents."
"And we own the Patent Office and the Courts."
Re:Companies will advertise with patents, not tech (Score:2)
"Only our sweetPhones(R) combine Call Waiting with our patented whizBang(TM) technology (because our unpatented whizBang(TM) technology would get us sued to our very own layer of Hades)!"
Apple asked for this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple asked for this (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect Apple knew what they were doing. They are trying to deal with two huge problems:
1) Apple is a high-end consumer company, like with PCs they initially do rather well, but over time they end up fighting an ecosystem of other manufacturers who are constantly undercutting them and eroding their market share. That's capitalism, but as Apple won't join the fight for the low-end, they cede it to others. And over time, the low-end gets good enough for most people, and Apple's market share drops to single figures.
2) Apple had no worthwhile patents on the actual technology of the iPhone, which was already invented by 2007 (design patents don't count). Mobile browsers, email, etc. had already been done for many years, and all of the hardware was licensed and patented by others.
Apple's response to 1) was to go on the offensive, and try to use the handful of patents they did have which could be applied to smart phones, and use those patents to shut out competitive products (Android being the prime competitor). Apple's response to 2) is to argue that their patents from the last few years are the equal of those mobile patents that other companies have acquired in the last 20 years. i.e. if you want to make a modern smart phone, then you will need to do a deal to license Apple's patents, regardless of how many other patents you have. Apple can then try to use the license terms to negate the advantage of its competitors multi-decade mobile patent portfolios.
It is an interesting approach, they are playing for keeps in a very high value market. The worst case scenario for them is that they end up with global market share in the single digits, as happened with desktop computers, and their current strategy reflects this overriding concern. At best, they kill Android and regain their 90%+ of the smartphone market. What will probably happen is something in the middle of those two extremes.
Re:Apple asked for this (Score:2)
Screwed by a software patent in the European Union? Dude, please!
Re:Apple asked for this (Score:2)
A stick is still a stick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A stick is still a stick (Score:3)
I bet the monkey that patented eating bugs off a stick made a fortune!
Indeed, he had all the bugs he could eat...
Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The big point about having the Nuclear Bomb is to NOT use it...
Steve Jobs broke the truce and went nuclear against Android... Except that most of his nuclear missiles are rotten (patents on obvious things... didn't we have "swipe" in "Minority Report" for example... and rounded rectangle... no comment)
Now, it's beginning to backfire... Samsung, Motorola and other would probably not have sued Apple out of existence... But now, Apple has put them in a situation where it's probably the best move...
My guess is that they will sue Apple again and again until iPhone and iPad go to oblivion... And Apple is in a dangerous situation. It's share is bubbling up... which means that it's perceived value is probably much higher than it's real value... It also mean that the Apple share can drop suddently to levels well below it's real value (panic effect) when the bubble will explode... And market bubble always explode one time or another...
Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs (Score:2)
In which other case has it backfired for Apple. Motorola managed to get the iPhone banned based on standards patents, Apple managed to get the ban lifted and filed an antitrust complaint along with Microsoft against Motorola which could, if accepted, hold Motorola liable for all damages resulting from the iPhone ban in Germany. Now they're suing Apple using a software patent in the European Union, which Apple is very likely to invalidate in an appeal and may make Motorola liable for even more damage. With suicidal moves like these, Motorola is making sure there's nothing of value left for Google to collect once their acquisition is finished.
Samsung? What did Samsung get from Apple?
Google have purposely placed themselves in a position which may get them in trouble with Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco by refusing to share patents. How's this an intelligent business choice? Actually, how's standing FOR Android (which is LESS profitable for Google than iOS and is losing share to it) an intelligent business decision? The only explanation that I can find to the whole Android fiasco is fanaticism, and Google will drag everyone down with them, except maybe Samsung, because they're strong in other areas.
Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs (Score:2)
I don't know exactly what the source for that chart is, but it places iOS much higher in the mobile OS share than Android, especially before the iPhone 4. I'll leave it up to you to explain this when it's a widely known fact that Android's share is and has been higher for a long time. This is relevant not because it validates my claims but because it potentially invalidates your source.
Re:Go Nuclear against Android said Jobs (Score:2)
The big point about having the Nuclear Bomb is to NOT use it...
Steve Jobs broke the truce and went nuclear against Android... Except that most of his nuclear missiles are rotten (patents on obvious things... didn't we have "swipe" in "Minority Report" for example... and rounded rectangle... no comment)
Now, it's beginning to backfire... Samsung, Motorola and other would probably not have sued Apple out of existence... But now, Apple has put them in a situation where it's probably the best move...
Indeed, just look at what Microsoft did.
"Dear Android makers,
We have some non-specific and probably unenforceable patents that would cost you money to defend, we wont sue you if you agree to pay us money."
And it worked, Microsoft got people paying them for nothing. Apple could have done the same except that Jobs didn't want money, he wanted to stop people competing against him. Now the people Apple has sued have responded in kind and Apple realises that suing one competitor is foolish, only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots sues all of them.
In 5 years, we'll look back on this and laugh, the "Look and Feel MK II" suit, it'll end as badly as the first one.
Push email? (Score:2)
Re:Push email? (Score:2)
If I want instant communication with someone, I'll run skype, or AIM, or an old-fashioned phone call. Maybe even just use SMS. Email was not supposed to be real-time.
Are you from 1990?
Ah, you're one of those idiots who phones me to ask whether I got your email if I don't reply within a minute.
email is asynchronous; feature! And, there are times when SMTP needs to do some housekeeping, which is why you get those bounce messages telling you the message couldn't be sent immediately, but that it will try again later.
I've no idea whether Exchange bothers with that anymore, or perhaps you think those are spam. Or, you call the postmaster demanding to know what that error message is saying?
Re:Push email? (Score:2)
there's a difference between a technology being instantaneous and communication being synchronous or asynchronous.
And, your point is ...? Care to spell it out for me? Please, go ahead and assume I'm an idiot. Really! I won't think less of you for it.
I'm currently reading a book ("The Anti-Christ") written by a guy (Nietzsche) who died more than a century ago. He's communicating with me via his writings. It's pretty asychronous though, since I didn't pick it up until long after he was dead. When he died, my father hadn't yet been born! I think that's pretty damned asynchronous.
Do you consider a dead tree book to be technology[*]?
It's an interesting read. He was an interesting man. It may take me a decade to make sense of what he wrote. Here's hoping I live that long.
Next, Thus Spake Zarathustra [gutenberg.org].
[*]Project Gutenberg - Authors with last name initial N. [gutenberg.org]
Yet I waste *my valuable time* trying to educate the likes of you, and for what?!?
Most of you are missing the point... (Score:2)
SMTP is a push-technology (Score:2)
Have these people not read RFC822 (updated by RFC2822)? Or is this just the usual incompetence of the patent office?
GOOD- the cold war of patents is over! (Score:2)
I hope everybody destroys each other utterly and consumers suffer BIG TIME. Maybe then the masses will realize how stupid the patent system has become and how it has not been serving it's purpose for existing. Most the patents in that space should not exist; and many of apples should exist as copyright (which is easy enough to work around.) Apple should have put more time into variations on touch screens if they didn't want to be at risk of copy cats; that patent was one of the few legit ones. Then the others would have inferior touch screens... Although, I don't think patents should be allowed to monopolize to that degree, they should have to license to anybody for a high fee with some sort of oversight.
We do not need BP preventing alternative energy progress because they own some key patent. Don't think they wouldn't... if they didn't just keep it secret until they thought somebody else might file it.
Re:GOOD- the cold war of patents is over! (Score:2)
While I do not like it at all, I find that you have a point. Maybe we should just force the patent office and the patent owner to pay significant damages when a patent gets invalidated.
They're at it again (Score:2)
Anyone else read that as Putsch email?
Doesn't IMAP have this already? (Score:2)
Thunderbird (on the desktop) happily does that with my IMAP accounts... huh? What am I missing??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAP_IDLE [wikipedia.org]
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Germany stopped doing that about 67 years ago.
Re:Don't worry (Score:3)
It's all the Greeks' fault these days.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2)
Unless you're Greek. Then it's the Germans fault again.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2)
Unless you're Greek. Then it's the Germans fault again.
It's Bush's fault! (Sounds like a German name to me.)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
See, you just learned two new things! Knowing now how easy that was maybe it's time to fill out that school application and give education a try? It's never too late they say.
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
As soon as Apple agrees to a patent swap agreement with Google. Yes, actual invention patents, for rounded-rectangle-in-black patents, but Google is only interested in competing.
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
It is perfectly clear to me now that Google does not play well with others, especially after trying to establish Chrome and Google+ as platforms.
From what I see from a web search on "google suing", that sounds like you'd think my refusal to have anything to do with pedophiles and organized crime was a bad thing. Why in the world would a corp. whose motto is "Don't Be Evil" want to "play well" with those barratrous jerks? Perhaps Google just doesn't like this stupid patent war !@#, and this is the stand it's taking against it? It's not doing them much good considering all the incoming suits from others, but that's not what having principles is all about. It's about doing the right thing, not the convenient thing.
Google !@#$ing buys patent pools to get them off the market so those barratrous jerks can't use them against anyone, FFS! That sounds pretty damned "Don't Be Evil" to me.
No, I'm not a Google fanboi. I don't use anything of theirs; not even search. Nor do I own anything from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, or Motorola.
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
When did not playing well with others suddenly become suing others? Your entire post relies on this premise, so please explain it.
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
When did not playing well with others suddenly become suing others? Your entire post relies on this premise, so please explain it.
You accuse Google of not playing well with others (for not playing the "lets share patents" game). Google is not suing others. Others are suing Google.
So, WTF are you talking about?
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
did you read rtfs or the rfta? motogoog is suing apple.
TFS. Well, both Microsoft and Apple have been suing Motorola over Android for quite some time. I assume TFA is just yet another front in that ongoing war. Try $WEB_SEARCH "motorola suing".
Re:Enough! (Score:2)
No, I'm not a Google fanboi. I don't use anything of theirs; not even search. Nor do I own anything from Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, HTC, or Motorola.
Please provide the following info: (1) the search engine you use (2) your mail provider (3) your computer manufacturer (4) your phone manufacturer (5) your OS
after you've done that, then we'll talk.
Er, why? Humour me. Why do I owe you that? I don't.
1 - ixquick.com
2 - Dope it out! I use my real email address, and have done liberally for more than a decade.
3 - Which one? I use an HP Pavilion dv4 (64 bit AMD Turion) and a Gateway Model MA3 (32 bit AMD Sempron).
4 - ca. 2009 Nokia (dumb phone).
5 - Linux (Debian stable and testing (squeeze and wheezy).
You? Why do I feel like I'm being stalked by an idjit? And why the !@#$ would I want to talk with you anymore than I have?
Why are you being such an asshole? Just curious. :-|
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2, Interesting)
Iit is a summary judgement based on extended observation, not an oversimplification.
This post (not mine) says it better: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2691519&cid=39157081 [slashdot.org]
This is not an isolated story, it is one in a series, and it jolly well is about Samsung as they are the ones who have been long term abused by apple with "not real invention" patents and it's nice to seem then able to wield muscle against apple.
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case. ;)
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
But you still have burden of proof.
They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
>>Your lack of vision is your own problem ;)
>
>Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case.
And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.
>>I think you find that many people agree with the rational conclusion I posted here.
>
>Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.
>>What I have not done is demonstrate the rational reasoning behind it, I suppose that
>>most readers are able to draw similar conclusions from their own observations.
>>You admit that you cannot see to do this, and I accept your admission.
>
>But you still have burden of proof.
I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation. My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.
>>I am hoping that Apple do refuse to accept to be extorted; I'm looking for a long painful fight to
>>dissuade anyone from taking the same path that they have taken.
>
>They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies
>have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.
My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung - either of which would count as severe wriggling.
I'm not trying to bankrupt Apple, just enjoy them getting some of what they've been dishing out.
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors. There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction, and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.
You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes it fallacious. As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.
In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now, or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not, Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.
I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring, because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience" perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online. Again, talk about being an idiot...
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
>>And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.
>
>Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors.
Not the ones I'm arguing about or which have been in the news lately.
>There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction,
This is a nice use of the "no true scotsman" falacy. I was using true smartphones over 10 years ago and worked customising the first microsoft smartphone (appeal to authority there).
>and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to
>absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.
No but that's what you just did.
>> I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising
>> to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.
>
>You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes
> it fallacious.
There is no debate, only the one in your head
>As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now
>only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread
> and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.
I'm not making an argument (except now, about the fact that I'm not) as I said below
>>I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation.
>> My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers
>>from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest
>>non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch
>> them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.
>In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since
> you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse
> others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues
> to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known
I was talking about gen1 ipod battery issues
> that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so
> anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now,
> or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to
> get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from
> hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar
> to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not,
> Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.
Patent is not about design.
>> My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to
>> the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth
>> of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung -
>> either of which would count as severe wriggling.
>I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring,
> because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience"
> perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online.
Dude, it was a throw-away comment, summary of my opinion based on over 10 years of experience, 3 spent in the smartphone industry (appeal to authority)
> Again, talk about being an idiot...
Well for someone who wants reasoning this is the first time you showed any! I didn't was reason I just gave summary of position.
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
That's because you are focusing too much on the details while ignoring the big picture of intent. And I'm supposed to be the one lacking vision...
And how does that invalidate my claim about there not being any similar successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before it? You didn't even name a single example of such a phone! All you did was to boast about something completely irrelevant (not to mention, unverifiable)!
Can you please explain how the text you quoted is a reduction to absurdity?
Yeah, forgive me for actually giving you the chance to prove that you are not the same thing you accuse others of being... I will not overestimate your cognitive abilities again.
Oh, so you're making sweeping statements about all current Apple customers because of something that happened 11 years ago? And we're the idiots?
Neither was I arguing otherwise. The patents are merely tools. Ridiculous or not, they are what companies employ against each other when fighting a legal battle for something that may or may not be related. Again, you are focusing too much in the details and missing the big picture.
When I make comments based on beliefs, I don't usually let them branch out by replying to every answer, unless someone is grossly missing the point, in which case I reply only to clarify what my stance is. Lastly, I usually refrain from insulting the "audience".
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
Patent is not about design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent [wikipedia.org]
Re:Apple begged for this (Score:2)
What purpose? Flame baiting by calling people idiots? Karma whoring by posting anti-Apple crap to Slashdot completely devoid of rational thinking?
Re:Less Pushin' for the Hessian (Score:2)