Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned 140
Maow writes with word that the U.S. Federal Appeals Court has reversed a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. According to the decision (PDF), "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. ...the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus." The ruling also said Apple didn't do a good enough job showing that the allegedly infringing features were "core" to the Nexus's operation. The case centered on what is called "unified search," a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large (U.S. Patent #8,086,604). "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."
Laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's certainly possible. This is what happens when you don't have free markets. It becomes profitable to divert some effort into abusing the regulatory systems instead of spending all your time and energy actually producing things.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the market that's broken, but the patent system... it clearly wasn't designed for computers & technology.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.
Now, Apple is clearly doing both, but the fact that the legal avenue is even viable for them to bother pursuing should be of great concern to anyone wishing to see greater vibrancy and energy from the marketplace.
Re:Laugh... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that none of those things are true. Patents are granted for completely tri
Re: (Score:2)
The original purpose of the patent system was to protect say Alexander Graham Bell when he invented the phone from marketing it, having big corporate come in and rip off his idea, cheating him out of a fortune and discouraging him from ever contributing to society ever again. That's backwards progressive. It was also almost a century and a half ago when this was relevant, before global economy became a buzz word, before the computer and internet were invented. We're still using this system and it no long
Re: (Score:2)
But Apple did not invent the SmartPhone (Score:2)
Apple's so-called "inventions" are things like the shape of an icon, silly crap like that.
But Apple wants to keep all other smart phones off the market, as if Apple "invented" the smart phone.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Informative)
Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Has anyone actually put out the costs broken down by general, defensive and offensive legal fees? I would really like to see it broken down that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone actually put out the costs broken down by general, defensive and offensive legal fees? I would really like to see it broken down that way.
By far the majority of the spending referred to was for unusually large, one-time, purchases of patent portfolios from failing companies.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Informative)
Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
No, they did not. The "spending on patents" which exceeded their R&D included huge (multibillion $) one-time purchases of assets, including patent portfolios, from failing companies.
Re:Laugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).
Re: (Score:3)
How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).
"Legal fees" is commonly understood to mean "fees paid for legal services". NOT money paid for licenses, copyrights, patents, leases, tangible property, real property, non-legal services or anything else except, you know, actual legal services.
And no, of course it's not R&D. Neither are a whole host of other things these companies spend money on, none of which magically become legal fees by virtue of not being R&D.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are counting them as legal fees because their only purpose is to avoid costly lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
at the far end, money goes into lawyers' pocket or developers'? It inspires more graduates to be lawyers or developers?
You're the one who's juggling terms, desperately I might add. A patent is not a "legal service" any more than a lease is. And no, all the money most certainly does not go into lawyer's pockets at the far end.
Some small fraction of it does of course, and that fraction is what would be referred to as legal costs, but the money we're discussing went to the selling companies as revenue, and from there, a tiny fraction went to the lawyers, the rest went to marketing, share holders, whatever expenses the company
Re: (Score:2)
<snark>
Really, Google could avoid paying for any patents and just make a cellular phone?
</snark>
Buying patent portfolios is like buying a house instead of renting. Google would obtain those patents either via outright ownership, or they'd rent them. You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists w
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot make a cellular phone which is compatible with modern networks without patent encumbrance of some sort or another.
That's precisely my point. But if the patent system didn't exist as it does now, you would be able to, if you could set your engineers to the task of figuring out how modern networks work and how to make something that interoperates with them.
Purchasing patent portfolios is to R&D what buying a building is to building one. If you need a building and one exists which fits your purpose, and your time is better spent in other aspects of your business than the construction of something fitting that purpose, you buy it outright. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is flawed. When you buy a patent, you don't buy any information or knowledge, let alone anything physical. You merely buy the right to use certain information/knowledge because the legal system is set up such that it is illegal to use it - this even if you could have come up with it on your own. The analogy would be more accurate if you said "purchasing technology/blueprints/research" instead of "purchasing patents"
OK, fine, his analogy was not perfect. But yours is no better. The perfect analogy would have been leasing a building--not buying anything physical, merely the right to use something.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what happens when you don't have free markets.
I am not an economist, so I am not sure what would free markets do in this case. I agree with Synerg1y's point -- the patent system is broken. So if the broken patent system exists, how would your "free markets" be?
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Market distortions perpetrated by government are often characterized by government money, but that isnt the whole story. The patent system is most certainly a market distortion, which seemed like a beneficial trade-off when it was only manufacturing techniques that were being patented. Clearly its not a free market if you arent free to also do what someone else is succeeding when doing. You shouldn't be guaranteed to succeed, but you should be free to try.
The patent system, as it stands, is a gross violation of liberty. The society does not benefit when information that was naturally (going to be) public information is given exclusive use. Society only benefits in the case where what would have been trade secrets is made public through these government enforced incentives of limited exclusiveness. This kind of would-have-been-a-trade-secret patent is rare these days. Companies like Intel and Global Foundries certainly are involved in that kind of 'good' patent (not exclusively, see instruction set patents), but companies like Apple patent information that would by definition become public through the sale of millions of devices which demonstrate it.
Its about time people stood up for technological liberty. End the 'design' side of the patent system, and reform the 'utility' side of the patent system.
Re:Laugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Free markets cannot exist, full stop. For instance, every time a companies actions have negative externalities - costs that affect others who aren't doing business with them - that distorts the market even if there's no government, because it means the free market price of their product doesn't reflect the actual cost. We see this with global warming; in fact that's one reason why libertarians are so keen on insisting that it doesn't exist despite the actual evidence. There's a related problem with (for instance) deep sea fishing called the tragedy of the commons - without government intervention the free market would wipe out fish stocks and drive fishermen into bankrupcy, despite the fact that this makes everyone else worse off.
That's before we even get into the problems with false advertising and food and drug mislabelling, and the consistent inability of the free market to deal with it, or natural monopolies and rent-seeking behaviour, or...
Re:Laugh patents are specified in Article I Sec. 8 (Score:2)
The fact is patents championed by Thomas Jefferson http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/classes/tcc313/200Rprojs/jefferson_invent/patent.html [virginia.edu] and enshrined in Article I Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It may or may not be wise to eradicate patents, but doing so will require a Cons
Re: (Score:2)
I find it rather amusing to read all this libertarian commentary treating the patent system as some form of "government regulation" as if it were some afterthought tacked on by politicians not as wise as the Founding Fathers.
The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.
Re: (Score:2)
The original patents were utility patents, not design patents. You are uninformed and you need to come to terms with that, such as not spitting ignorant bullshit at others thats based completely on incomplete information.
Ummm ... the so called '604 patent that sparked the ban of the Galaxy Nexus is a utility patent. It's a patent about the utility of unified search and spoken results on a smartphone.
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that the patent system itself is what makes the market not free. A freer market would be one without the patent system.
How would that market operate? It means companies would no longer be able to make money by coming up with something and preventing other people from doing it (thus enjoying the benefits of a monopoly), but rather, to come up with something which they can make money from even if they have competition. Whenever there is competition in a free market, prices go down while quality go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but (Score:5, Informative)
We're more interested in legal precidence than the effects on an individual product line.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it was a shot across Google's bow.
If Apple really wanted to hurt Samsung alone, they would have picked the SII instead - it's very close to the same phone (admittedly, it was Samsung's "true" flagship phone as the hardware specs were the same or better). Going after the Nexus was probably nothing more than a two-birds-one-stone scenario, attacking their largest hardware competitor and their largest (only?) OS competitor (and sworn enemy) at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
The Galaxy Nexus has been on sale for almost a year.
Re: (Score:1)
I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
Well, then they were late in getting the ban - the Galaxy Nexus has been on sale for almost a year already.
Re: (Score:3)
I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
Considering the Galaxy Nexus was released almost a year BEFORE the iPhone 5, that's unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
And it worked, this time at least. Even if they didn't stop Android outright, they were able to slow down its momentum for a short while. It's not a complete victory, but it's enough of one. The real question is, is it going to work again the next time. I hope not. More of these, and they could really kill Android's momentum and ultimately kill Android.
Thank you.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I know, I know, it's blasphemous and wrong, but don't worry! Friend Apple will be by to innovate the Appeals Court, correcting their faulty logic! Then the foul Green Beast will be forever slain, and all the true believers will be welcomed to iHeaven to stand by His side with His holy turtleneck! So don't despair!
Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I.E.. Apple forfeits some of the bond they posted for PI, up to 96.5 million dollars, maybe more.
This ruling can also put a serious dent in the Apple's victory over Samsung SJ court. The same reasoning will overturn that verdict as well. (Apple didn't show they were damaged by Customers seeking out those specific patented features.)
Additionally those features represent a tiny fraction of the overall value of the phones.. (big hit to damages award),
Re: (Score:2)
I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.
Competition is good.
Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.
Competition is good.
Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.
I have worked in the Telco industry for 10 years now and you can trust me when I say that Apple's move into mobile devices has been like an earthquake in a petrified landscape and it has had an effect way outside the Apple 'fanboy' community. Like Apple or hate them, the iPod, iPad and iPhone have all transformed their respective market segments (and heavily influenced Android). Nobody took tablets terribly seriously until the iPad, the iPod has revolutionised music players (I know that because I was in the
Re: (Score:2)
I am disappointed... in this rant, we people who like linux don't even get mentioned... next year is the year of linux on the desktop, i swear :p
Lucy Koh, look around... (Score:4, Insightful)
unless you overturn the idiotic jury verdict, the entire World is going to laugh at you.
Re: (Score:3)
Lucy Koh got bitch-slapped on this one. Let us hope that it is the start of a trend.
"Before PROST, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. "
Thank you and those who had the wisdom to select you to the court.
Re: (Score:2)
"SHARON PROST, Circuit Judge
SHARON PROST was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001."
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/sharon-prost-circuit-judge.html [uscourts.gov]
"KIMBERLY A. MOORE, Circuit Judge
KIMBERLY A. MOORE was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006."
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/kimberly-a-moore-circuit-judge.html [uscourts.gov]
"JIMMIE V. REYNA, Circuit Judge
Jimmie V. Reyna was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President Barack Obama in 2011."
http://www.cafc.uscour [uscourts.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
unless you overturn the idiotic jury verdict, the entire World is going to laugh at you.
Not the same case; this is a preliminary injunction from claims that are not scheduled for trial for a very long time yet to come.
Hooray, someone gets it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the Nexus didn't have any features, then it would cease being a popular brand. That's kind of the point that Apple was trying to make.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but if this particular feature were left out, people would still buy it. The Appeals Court noted this clearly in their order:
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and this particular search feature is one that I have barely used in years of having an Android phone. To ban sales of the phone because of it is patently absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there!
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what the court said, wondering "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant."
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between "You're infringing and will be punished" and "You're infringing and cannot sell the phone until we get this worked out". Blocking sales should be the nuclear option, only used in the most blatant violations of the most key features, which is what this judge is saying. Violating this patent to marginally improve the user experience on a device is not sufficient to run a company into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nexus is a brand. I worked on the Nexus 7 tablet. I guess you don't know what a brand is.
Re: (Score:2)
Nexus is very "Brandish" to those of us who buy based on "Nexus"
Nexus means that I am dealing with an unlocked, root capable phone running base Android software.
I like Nexus s. Some of them I might skip because of the manufacturer but I will not be buying another non Nexus phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, in some sense that is not true. When buying phones, it must be Android. That's what I'm looking for. I'll compare amongst Android phones for everything else, as you suggest. Brand. Features. Price. Size. Color. Style. Keyboard. Cameras.
But not running Android is a deal killer. I buy the phone because it runs Android. Because it syncs with Google services, runs Google maps, etc. I buy it because I can get s
Re: (Score:2)
And before an iFanboy complains, I would point out that they do the same. They buy the iDevice specifically because it is from Apple, runs iOS, is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc.
Why would they complain? Those are all perfectly valid positions to take. Your choice of platform and the criteria that are involved in its selection have nothing to do with anyone else - I just with that certain Android "fans" would appreciate that people who don't ultimately choose Android also have equally valid reasons and criteria.
I didn't go for an iPhone because it "is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc." - that's simply a nonsense statement. My iPhone (in fact, my last two iPhones) have
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing how reasonable you can be when it comes to defending Apple from unreasonable claims.
Too bad that capacity for reason completely goes away when it comes to defending Apple from reasonable claims.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how reasonable you can be when it comes to defending Apple from unreasonable claims.
Too bad that capacity for reason completely goes away when it comes to defending Apple from reasonable claims.
--Jeremy
Such as? Give me a reasonable claim where you think my reason will elude me, or better a CID link to a post or two. Is this going to hinge on the definition of "reasonable"?
Re: (Score:2)
(additional: that comment (41636511) came off more adversarial than I intended)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And this makes the case all the more intriguing. As the court pointed out, the feature in question (Quick Search Box) is a part of Android, not something provided specifically by Samsung, and it has existed for several years longer than this particular phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean unified search is coming back? (Score:3)
Will the next software update for the GN and GS3 then reactivate unified search?
Google desktop did it in 2004 (Score:5, Informative)
Version 1 of google desktop was released a month BEFORE this patent was even filed. I don't remember if version 1 had unified search, but the later versions definitely did.
Is the US patent office pulling a Velvan Hogan and disregarding prior art just because it doesn't run on the same hardware? Or do they just automatically approve EVERY apple patent without research?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 (Score:4, Insightful)
And the court's default position is 'if the patent office passed it it's probably valid'.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the alternative is to re-create a new court within the Patent Office, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Making a judgment on whether something is patent-worthy is an inherently messy process, and making authoritative judgments about messy issues is what courts are for.
Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 (Score:5, Informative)
I just looked into the 604 patent some more, it was filed in 2004, but was rejected that year and another 8 times over the following years. It wasn't approved until 2011, yet it somehow still has an effective date of 2004.
So it's not that the USPTO grants every apple patent, it's just that if you submit the same patent 10 times over the span of 5 years, they will eventually approve it, even if they shouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The USPTO is fully fee-funded, at no cost to the taxpayer (http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp).
Regarding multiple rejections, this is common in patent prosecution. A first Office Action is almost always Non-Final. Applicant has the opportunity to rebut the arguments of the examiner and/or file amendments to overcome the alleged prior art. If these arguments and/or amendments are not persuasive, or the examiner has new rejections (such as new prior art) necessitated by the am
Re: (Score:1)
Your taxes comment is fatuous. The running of the PTO is covered by fees. The OP's comment was not directed toward external costs.
What do you even mean by saying "the actual patent was only realized once all the examiner's objections were addressed?" The specification may not substantially change throughout prosecution; any changes to the content of the specification or claims that were not disclosed as of the filing date are considered new matter under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph, and subject to a rejection
Compensation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
Apple was required to put up a bond before the injunction went into effect, for exactly this reason. That money is not going to be released to Samsung at this time, because the matter is not yet settled. This is a preliminary injunction on claims that have not yet gone to trial--it is not related to the recent verdict Apple won against Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose they can sue the district court for abusing their discretion. But I dont think it has tried before, and I would expect the district court and the judges to have some immunity from prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
Yes, but it was only actually banned for a few days. The appeals court stayed the injunction shortly after it was granted.
Re: (Score:2)
It pisses me off because I know that a lot of potential accessories were held back from the market because the Nexus was banned.
It's my one complaint about this phone atm, that there are so few things in the way of mounts, etc.
(It's also why Apple's decision to go with thunderbolt is damned annoying. Nothing like seeing speakermounts which could be standard split into two 'camps' on store shelves)
A good example (Score:4, Interesting)
A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.
Re: (Score:3)
Frequently overturned judicial rulings will hurt that judge's chances for advancement.. If a complaint is filed, the chief judge(for the district) will assign it to an appointed judicial committee for review.. That proceeding can result in private or public censure..
The Chief judge can also place that judge on low profile case list for an indefinite period.
Re: (Score:1)
A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.
Well I believe if a judge is wrong then he should get some sort of punishment. I mean for all we know he could have been paid big $$$$ to make rulings like this.
Re: (Score:3)
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
Because that's far too rigid. If the original case depended on a tricky point of an obscure law, it's quite possible for the trial judge to get it wrong in a subtle way. Or if there were two cases being brought at about the same time that tested a new law and two trials were decided in different directions based on different readings of the same law, that would require the superior court to describe which is actually correct. These are examples where counting them as "strikes against the judge" would be exc
WAT (Score:2)
What, you mean fucking combining fucking results from several fucking searches? That's not a fucking invention -- that's fucking obvious. Fuck.
Class Action (Score:1)
We (who wanted to buy a Samsung product, but who were unable to because of the legal shenanigans of Apple Corp.) should file a class-action law suit against Apple, naming as a codefendant every employee of Apple, every Apple store, their lawyers, and so on, for statutory and punitive damages for presuming to restrict our freedoms laboring under the sadly mistaken assumption that we would buy Apple's products if there weren't an alternative.
There's always an alternative to buying Apple products: NOT buying A
Re: (Score:1)
If life exists elsewhere in the universe, they likewise don't need Apple products
Apple disagrees, everyone wants to purchase apple products, even if they don't know it.
Samsung are thieves (Score:1)
Re:logical ruling on a patent case (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just any old logical ruling, but I speculate it holds the seeds for slowing down patent madness. Borrowing from another of my posts elsewhere:
"It said the district court in California, which had issued the ban in June, had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction"."
Which, in Court Speak, is pretty bad. "Abused Discretion" is basically what we were all saying in Less-Safe-For-Work terms.
There's also an awesome phrase to keep an eye on. "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the â(TM)604 patentâ"not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."
So we have the BAREST beginnings of how to slow down patent abuse:
1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season" or something. Let's even say something like that is innovating, and not obvious - shake your phone at a bird and it falls out of the sky!?
OtherCorp says that the tech infringes on their other patent which got there first, *and then tries to ban sales of the whole phone.*I think this court case is saying that the grumpy corp has to prove that consumers basically stood in the mall and picked which phone to buy based on exactly that tech and no more. "Hmm, this one has a better screen, better sound, better camera, better maps, better music interface, Android store." "Yeah, but mine kills pigeons in the park." "Ooh, I'm sold, I'll do that!"
Re: (Score:2)
can i get one of these that can take out the squirrels in my garden and the neighbors dog that shits in my yard. That one feature would out rank everything else for me.
Re: (Score:2)
can i get one of these that can take out the squirrels in my garden and the neighbors dog that shits in my yard.
Cell Guns? [snopes.com]
Re:logical ruling on a patent case (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps more interesting was the court's commentary on Apple's practice of using the courts to completely block competitors from the market, saying that it is necessary to determine if the claims of harm are relevant or "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant." In other words, you may still be entitled to damages but you are not allowed to use one minor feature to completely eliminate your competition.
Re: (Score:2)
1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season"
Seriously, you gotta pitch that at the Kickstarter crowd. Best app idea ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple phones, Samsung phones... ALL MADE IN TAIWA... uh, CHINA!
Re: (Score:3)
I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...
Re: (Score:3)
American Geography.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...
It certainly is, according to my iPhone 5.
Re: (Score:3)
This is slashdot not twitter you dolt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ugh. Every time I see someone shove hash-tags in the middle of what they're saying, I can't help but feel like every time one comes up, it's as if the poster just stopped talking, knocked me to the ground, jumped up and down on my chest, and just started screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M PART OF A TRENDING TERM! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME RIGHT NOW!". For each tag.
If the tags are all put at the end of the post, that looks more like trash piling up in a lazy bachelor's apartment, but at least that doesn't
Re:what about the lost sales? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well better not tell the iFans, about half that thing comes from Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
Better rip that Retina display out then.
Re: (Score:2)