10 posts / 0 new
Last post
AnotherJoe's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 10/06/2011 - 13:50
Posts: 785
Apple vs Samsung Legal case
English

Following the ridiculous court case where Apple was awarded $1B damage for completely ridiculous patents (subsequenctly reduced to $600m), 2 of the 3 patents - the bounce back and pinch to zoom have been invalidated by the US patent office.

 

Its only a matter of time before the last patent is also ruled invalid, and Apple's court case becomes a complete (and costly) waste of time. It couldnt happen to a nicer company!

 

This is but part of three pronged attack on Google by Apple+Microsoft+Oracle on the open source community - but it appears that common sense is prevailing, and Google is slowly but surely winning all the court cases across the Globe. (they've already won in the UK without chance of appeal).

 

Microsofts case is that Google by offering a free OS is harming competiton and setting back software progress - which is just hilarious, they are basically saying "our proprierarty system that we charge $80 is better for customers than Googles free OS that has more features and better innovation".

 

Oracle's case is by far the most entertaining with their claim that Google having the same rangecheckmethod (9lines of code out of 10m+ that a 1st year computer science student would come up with) somehow means they are entitled to $10B in damges. And despite getting spanked in the courts they decide to appeal - they really deserve everthing they are going to get  - nothing but a huge legal bill and looking like a complete bunch of twats,

 

Google will win and Microsoft, Apple And Oracle will get what they deserve - being confined to the history books of mediocraty. Its a win-win for consumers, and an end to overpriced, underperforming crap.

 

The other hilarious tale is the ongoing SCO vs IBM case where SCO claim linux infringes their patents (which technically belong to Novell, not SCO), yet they still try and drag it out.

 

Open Source is the only way forward for IT, and the sooner these software dinosaurs with their proprietary systems realise this - the better of we wil be !

 

More details are available on www.groklaw.net

 

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3033
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

Microsoft got in big trouble for giving away Internet explorer with Windows.

And Google are no charity. Giving stuff away free is a fairly usual tactic for driving out competition.

They did it with Maps, destroyed competition and then started charging. Who is to say they won't with other products? Who is to say that they won't charge normal consumers eventually for things that are taken for granted. 

I don't trust Google as far as I can throw them. But I am pleased that the idiotic patent claims by Apple are starting to go the other way.

 

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3033
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

As for "open source" "future of IT"-

Orly?

Google Apps are not open source, nor should they be. The OS is, simply to enable Googles advertising and data collection revenue stream get out to as many people as possible..

 

I would say "open standards" SHOULD be the future of IT...But I can't see it coming.

 

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 13178
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

fr0g wrote:
They did it with Maps, destroyed competition and then started charging.

Charging for what? I've never paid for anything to do with Maps.

bigboss's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 25/03/2009 - 21:40
Posts: 13659
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

The_Lhc wrote:

fr0g wrote:
They did it with Maps, destroyed competition and then started charging.

Charging for what? I've never paid for anything to do with Maps.

They're charging businesses I think, for listing their shops etc.

http://www.google.co.uk/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056128/Google-Maps-start-charging--thousands-sites-apps-hit-fees.html

simonlewis's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 15/04/2008 - 10:17
Posts: 3660
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

I don't see what is wrong with that, they are running a business not a charity.

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3033
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

simonlewis wrote:

I don't see what is wrong with that, they are running a business not a charity.

 

You miss the point. It was free from the beginning. That drove out competitors and then they started charging to business.

If they had done that from the beginning there would/might have been more options.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpu8TuRZEBjM30sFn8c7QvMWNjXA

hammill's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 11:46
Posts: 2463
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

fr0g wrote:

simonlewis wrote:

I don't see what is wrong with that, they are running a business not a charity.

 

You miss the point. It was free from the beginning. That drove out competitors and then they started charging to business.

If they had done that from the beginning there would/might have been more options.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpu8TuRZEBjM30sFn8c7QvMWNjXA

Quite so. It is similar to what the big supermarkets do. Move into a new town, sell products at a loss or break even, drive the competition out of business, then hike the prices. Understandably every big company wants to  a monopoly, so strong regulation has to prevent it happening.
fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3033
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

hammill wrote:

fr0g wrote:

simonlewis wrote:

I don't see what is wrong with that, they are running a business not a charity.

 

You miss the point. It was free from the beginning. That drove out competitors and then they started charging to business.

If they had done that from the beginning there would/might have been more options.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpu8TuRZEBjM30sFn8c7QvMWNjXA

Quite so. It is similar to what the big supermarkets do. Move into a new town, sell products at a loss or break even, drive the competition out of business, then hike the prices. Understandably every big company wants to  a monopoly, so strong regulation has to prevent it happening.

 

What makes it worse is the likes of Google, Amazon, Apple and co all get away without paying taxes. Just bloody great for startups and local business that.

But yes, Walmart, Tesco etc are just as bad.

I would personally slap a tax on internet shops and a tax break on local business. Even the playing field a little.

 

I sound like an old fart, but when I was younger I actually walked out of my house, 10 minutes later and I was in a clothes shop, buying a new shirt...or whatever. I could jump on a bus for 15 mins and choose from Comet, Dixons, Currys, Scottish Power, and even independant electronics shops if I wanted to buy a new music player, or TV (I almost said mobile phone, but then they didn't exist!).

 

Not to mention the fact that there were at least 10 different shops selling music whether it be vinyl or CD. There were 2 in my own tiny town.

 

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 13178
RE: Apple vs Samsung Legal case

fr0g wrote:
I sound like an old fart, but when I was younger I actually walked out of my house, 10 minutes later and I was in a clothes shop,

Ten minutes of walking from my house wouldn't even get me to the main road, never mind civilisation...

Log in or register to post comments