#  >  > Computers Can Be Fun >  >  > Computer News >  >  Apple's Frivolous Patent Bullying tactics doing it no favours

## harrybarracuda

It would seem Apple's legal bills keep piling up with its failed attempts to fulfill Steve's dying wish.




> Court decisions wrinkle Apple's Android legal battle
> 
> 
> By Dan Levine, Reuters June 13, 2012
> 
> Apple Inc has spent nearly three years fighting its rivals in a global smartphone patent war. Now, *setbacks in two key U.S. court cases are laying bare why a drawn-out battle could be bad news for the iPhone maker*.
> 
> *Last Thursday, Judge Richard Posner in Chicago federal court canceled Apple's long-awaited trial against Google Inc's Motorola Mobility division*, which makes devices powered by the Internet search company's Android mobile operating system. The trial had been set to start this week.
> 
> ...

----------


## Loy Toy

It seems that they didn't cover their intellectual property arse when they lodged their patents hence they have had their claims of infringement thrown of court.

----------


## harrybarracuda

It's mindboggling how many ridiculously vague patents each of the major manufacturers own.

That's why Google bought Motorola.

In fact when Nortel went tits up they sold off their patent portfolio separately.

The only real winners are the lawyers.

----------


## Butterfly

I knew an IT dev guy whose only job at some big mega corp was to fulfill application for patents over absolutely nothing, even 3 lines of codes doing something completely generic. He was paid per application processed and made more than 150k per year over that job. All he had to do was to make simple functions or tasks sounds complicated and IP for the application to be accepted.

----------


## Cthulhu

Apple's secret weapon

(CNN) -- It's hard to believe, but there was a time when Apple's computers were accused of being strictly last generation.

Their computers were made with clunky Power PC processors, and Windows PC owners smirked at the wheezing Mac platform. Michael Dell even famously said the whole company was so behind the times that if it were up to him, he'd euthanize it.

How things change.

While the rest of the industry was counting Apple out, a Steve Jobs newly returned to Apple spent the early part of the last decade quietly assembling a time machine. Following the iPad, iPhone and MacBook Air before it, the retina-display MacBook Pro announced Monday at the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco is just the latest time traveler Apple has sent back to us from the future.

It's a machine so shiny, so shimmering, so futuristic, so unlike anything else out there that it will take the PC-making competition at least a year to release a truly competing product. How did this even happen? How did Apple assemble its time machine, and why can't the likes of Sony, HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo seem to catch up?

Apple announces high-res laptops

There's no flux capacitor involved, and although Apple's design team, led by Jony Ive, is truly visionary, there are lots of companies with revolutionary visions of the future of computing. The difference between Apple and other computer makers is that Apple can actually build the revolutionary, magical machines it dreams up.

That's Apple's real mojo. They can actualize. Apple can say to themselves that they are going to revolutionize the professional laptop, or the smartphone, or the tablet, and then not only follow through with an enviable purity of design, source all of the parts and manufacture their product in utter secrecy, then ship the resulting en masse and sell them at unheard of profit margins. No one else can.

It's all in Apple's mastery of the supply chain, which is Tim Cook's particular genius. His strategy is simple: When Apple decides to go ahead and make a revolutionary new product, it buys up literally almost all of the world's stock of the components that define the gadget. This not only gives Apple massive discounts in component prices, because they are buying in extreme bulk, but it also prevents the competition from quickly releasing clones of Apple's iconic machines, or matching Apple in price without cutting corners.

It happens time and time again. When Apple first released the iPhone, it took the smartphone industry a year to release a phone that was even competitive, spec-for-spec, by which time Apple had already unveiled the iPhone 3GS.

Hardware manufacturers trying to compete with Apple constantly discover that they can only build competing devices off of Apple's rejected parts, or else build new factories from the ground up to manufacture the parts they need.

Look at the iPad. It has no competition, 2½ years in. Last quarter, Apple sold almost 12 million iPads. Comparatively, Apple's biggest competitor -- Samsung -- sold 1.1 million tablets. Why? Companies simply can't build products as good, or Apple's stranglehold on the manufacturing supply chain prevents them from doing so.

Then there's a MacBook Air. We're starting to see competitive ultrabooks a year and a half after Apple unveiled the second-gen Air, but that's only after Intel reportedly set up a massive $500 million subsidy fund to help PC makers build a MacBook Air clone.

The new retina-display MacBook Pro is another such product. It's a beast of a machine all around, but its defining feature is a high-resolution display with 220 pixels per inch, each smaller than the acuity of the human eye. It's far and away the best display of any notebook or even desktop on the market, and you can bet that Apple is in control of most of the world's supply of the panels necessary to make a machine that even comes close to competing.

There's a famous Ray Bradbury story called "A Sound of Thunder" in which a man travels into the prehistoric past, accidentally squashes an insect underfoot and thus indelibly changes the future forever. Apple is that time traveler. The prehistoric insect is the competition. Apple crushes it underfoot with calculated purpose, and that is how the future of computing is once again forever changed.

----------


## baldrick

> It's a machine so shiny


this sums apple hardware up to a T - retards will preen themselves in the reflective coating of the screen marvelling at how good looking they are - all closet homosexuals




> When Apple first released the iPhone


the axim x50v had been out for 4 years

Comparison: Apple iPhone 16GB vs. Dell Axim X50v | PDAcomparer | PDAdb.net

----------


## Cthulhu

> the axim x50v had been out for 4 years


... and no one could make phone calls with it.

That's quite a trick for a phone, isn't it?

----------


## Loy Toy

> It's mindboggling how many ridiculously vague patents each of the major manufacturers own.


I would suspect that no patents have been awarded as yet and that is where the problem is.

When you apply for a patent it normally takes around 30 months before a full patent is awarded and that is after careful examination by the patent office examiners (18 months) and the public (12 months). 

Before that time you enter the market with a patent pending product which is always a risk.

----------


## baldrick

> Originally Posted by baldrick
> 
> 
> the axim x50v had been out for 4 years
> 
> 
> ... and no one could make phone calls with it.
> 
> That's quite a trick for a phone, isn't it?


wrong apple tard

I had no problems using a Jabra BT earpiece/mic , wifi and skype to call people

----------


## Cthulhu

> I had no problems using a Jabra BT earpiece/mic , wifi and skype to call people


That's not a phone, then, now is it...?

Of course, hey, what're "facts" good for, except for you to throw them out.

Seriously, you are an incredibly dumb, unintelligent, and dense troll. Fascinating.

Your anger, hate and bitterness are merely fuel to me.

Oh, look, a comment of your's that didn't get deleted.

----------


## baldrick

> That's not a phone, then, now is it...?


because only an iphone is a phone according to apple zealots




> Oh, look, a comment of your's that didn't get deleted.


it only last until you complain about it because it makes you look like a sad excuse for a rational adult

----------


## harrybarracuda

Oh dear is the schoolgirl still running to teacher?

What a twat.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> That's not a phone, then, now is it...?
> 
> 
> because only an iphone is a phone according to apple zealots


Uh ....No. Because only something with actual phone circuitry is a phone.... which that dell/htc joke, according to the link you provided, doesn't have. 

Comparison: Apple iPhone 16GB vs. Dell Axim X50v | PDAcomparer | PDAdb.net

*Cellular network : not supported*



Otherwise I'll claim that this preceded the Dell crap-PDA as a 'phone"

----------


## Butterfly

the iPhone is simply a PDA with a SIM in it, it's not a phone per design, just an embedded PC with a TAPI interface

----------


## baldrick

> Otherwise I'll claim that this preceded the Dell crap-PDA as a 'phone"


you my dear little applefcuktard claim all sorts of sh1t 

how was the newton able to make phone calls ?  record a message and throw it to your mum on the other side of the room ?

----------


## Cthulhu

Easy - dial from the contacts screen with the included PCMCIA modem, and use the headphones/microphone to talk. There you go, a phone (in fact, more of a phone than the Dell CraPad)

----------


## Cthulhu

> the iPhone is simply a PDA with a SIM in it, it's not a phone per design, just an embedded PC with a TAPI interface


That's fine - no problem with that description. But then one should at least compare Apples to Apples, i.e. another embedded PC with a SIM, to compare with. Apparently, Baldrick needs some special education to comprehend that.

----------


## baldrick

> included PCMCIA modem


into a landline

----------


## hazz

For a country with some of the best legislation to prevent cartels and abuse of monopolies in the worlds, its a real shame to see how they have completely and utterly lost the plot when it comes to patents. Its become a back door to legalise abusing monopolies and an extortion racket.... its seriously screwing their economy.


Fundamentally patents are abusive monopolies, they are granted to provide an economic incentive to private companies to invest heavily in R&D that may well have paybacks in excess of 10-20 years. The pharmaceutical industry is a classic example where without monopoly protection they simply could not afford the R&D half billion dollar investments that have created the drugs that make our lives better.

I see few patents coming out of these tech companies that have either required huge finical investments they need to recover over decades and more importantly work which would not have occurred without patent protection.

----------


## Cthulhu

Which is the reason why Apple (ie Tim Cook) has been vocally outspoken *against* the current patent system, declaring it "broken":

Midsize Insider: Apple CEO Tim Cook Thinks Patent System Is Broken

Specifically, Apple is taking a stance against "Standards-Essential Patents", which is what most of the current quagmire of lawsuits is about (and which Apple refuses to litigate over):

Tim Cook Speaking Against Suing Over Standards-Essential Patents at D10 | PandoDaily




> “No one should be able to get an injunction off a standards patent, because the owner is obligated to license it in a fair and reasonable manner. Apple has not sued anyone over standards-essential patents that we own, because we feel it’s fundamentally wrong to do that. The problem in this industry is that if you add up what everyone says their standards-essential patents are worth, no one would be in the phone business.”


_Apple CEO Tim Cook at the D10 conference speaking against suing over standards-essential patents_

and in case there are questions what the differences between "Standards-Essential" patents, and "other patents" are:

FOSS Patents: Tim Cook makes clear-cut distinction between standard-essential patents and other patents

(the above is a really good discussion of this subject).

----------


## baldrick

*don't be mislead by the astroturfer*



*Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent* 

Apple's 'slide to unlock' patent win could halt Android sales in Germany | Technology | guardian.co.uk

----------


## hazz

Apples complaints  patents about the patent systems are obviously not marketing bullocks designed to distract the faithful that apple is as much a patent troll as it is a a r&d company. 

Good examples of this are their recent patent on wedge shaped laptops, the result of an R&D effort so expensive it put the companies future on the line, which is why they need the patent to protect apple from cheap knock offs such as this blatant wedge shaped apple air clone from sony

----------


## Cthulhu

Here's one of the points - *EVERYONE* in the industry smirks at Apple, until they do something different, or succeed at what everyone else failed,  and then all those same smirkers quickly copy Apple.

Again, Apple's opposition is to Standards-Essential Patents (SEPs), and not the example listed.

----------


## hazz

words are cheap, its actions that count. Apple are a very active participant in the abuse of the US patent system. Apple patenting of wedge shaped laptops is a classic example of whats wrong. And what is the issue with sony manufacturing wedge shaped laptops like the one above, which even if it does have similarities with they air... why would it be reasonable for apple to expect protection from such trivial innovations?

----------


## Cthulhu

> why would it be reasonable for apple to expect protection from such trivial innovations?


a) because they are innovations, nevertheless, and Apple should be afforded compensations for others riding on their coattails. No one is saying that no one else should build wedge shaped laptops (or use 'slide to unlock') but that they should compensate Apple for copying their work.

b) because if Apple were to do nothing about it, others would be (and are) using equally trivial patents/innovations to go after Apple, in search of cheap thrills.

c) copying each others has been going on for decades, and in most cases, most manufacturers just sat by idly and did nothing about it. Apple takes it seriously, and at least tries to make turn others copying it into an expensive proposition.

As long as others are doing it with impunity, I prefer to see Apple be aggressive and beat the others at their own game, time and time again.

----------


## Butterfly

apple is no innovator, except in the marketing department

it's because they have failed to develop any kind of meaningful innovation that they have to fall back on those silly innovation like "patenting of wedge shaped laptops"

I mean WTF ? how is that fucking useful ? it's not, unless you are a retard like Quack Quack who is equally mediocre and futile as apple inventions

----------


## Cthulhu

Your persistence and resilience in the face of your own mediocrity is admirable. 

Unfortunately you continue to be irrelevant - your bile and bitterness must really be running over when realizing you have achieved nothing. Apple is still :

- the largest company on the planet, having eclipsed Dell, Microsoft, and recently Exxon.
- most successful single mobile operating system manufacturer.
- largest Unix vendor on the planet (splitting hairs, but why not).
- enjoys the biggest consumer loyalty.
- has the best consumer satisfaction. 

Your (and your friends') petty trolling doesn't dissuade any of the hundreds of millions of satisfied Apple consumers, of whom a large percentage move on to purchase another Apple product. It really doesn't matter how much you stomp your leg, and how many repeat lies your roommates Harry & Baldrick throw out there.

...and that's what halls you most, isn't it, how irrelevant you are...

... and that's what makes this most enjoyable

----------


## Butterfly

> - the largest company on the planet, having eclipsed Dell, Microsoft, and recently Exxon.
> - most successful single mobile operating system manufacturer.
> - largest Unix vendor on the planet (splitting hairs, but why not).
> - enjoys the biggest consumer loyalty.
> - has the best consumer satisfaction.


how is that relevant in the innovation department ? it's not, proving again my point for which you have no argument, only demonstrating your own mediocrity for addressing the question

----------


## TizMe

Next we'll have a tyre company patenting round tyres.



> recent patent on wedge shaped laptops

----------


## hazz

> Originally Posted by hazz
> 
> 
> why would it be reasonable for apple to expect protection from such trivial innovations?
> 
> 
> a) because they are innovations, nevertheless, and Apple should be afforded compensations for others riding on their coattails. No one is saying that no one else should build wedge shaped laptops (or use 'slide to unlock') but that they should compensate Apple for copying their work.
> 
> b) because if Apple were to do nothing about it, others would be (and are) using equally trivial patents/innovations to go after Apple, in search of cheap thrills.
> ...


So you recon that it would be reasonable  for apple to patent the shell shape of their laptop and then charge everyone who makes something similar, like my sony above?

----------


## baldrick

I am sure apple has a patent on persuading the easily impressionable lowest common denominators to buy overpriced fisher price level fashion accessories.

there are similarities between apple marketing and fast food premium toy advertising to children

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> - the largest company on the planet, having eclipsed Dell, Microsoft, and recently Exxon.
> - most successful single mobile operating system manufacturer.
> - largest Unix vendor on the planet (splitting hairs, but why not).
> - enjoys the biggest consumer loyalty.
> - has the best consumer satisfaction.
> 
> 
> how is that relevant in the innovation department ? it's not ....


Au contraire ... how do you think Apple got to the leading positions I listed?

----------


## Cthulhu

> So you recon that it would be reasonable  for apple to patent the shell shape of their laptop and then charge everyone who makes something similar, like my sony above?


Reasonable? Not necessarily. 

But if the patent system allows it, they would be fools *not* to do it, quite simply. 

Has Apple sued anyone over the wedge shape? *filing* and receiving a patent are quite different to actually suing over something. Have they?

----------


## hazz

^not really, you don't need to patent to protect yourself, you can simply put the idea into the public domain. Which add more fuel to the fire that their comments about the patent system needing reform are simply worlds.

BTW that air like sony laptop, weighed in at about 600g, had a carbon fibre case, a PII processor and is about 10 years old

----------


## Cthulhu

> ^not really, you don't need to patent to protect yourself, you can simply put the idea into the public domain.


That's a very idealistic viewpoint, unfortunately, it also doesn't hold true.

I asked a very simple question - how many lawsuits has Apple filed over the wedge shaped laptop design?

----------


## Butterfly

> Au contraire ... he do you think Apple got to the leading positions I listed?


are you retarded or just baiting ?

----------


## Butterfly

the only true "innovations" by apple were the "Apple 1" and "Apple II" and the first Mac

commercial and technical success on a "niche" of aficionados, not a "mass" of retards

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> Au contraire ... he do you think Apple got to the leading positions I listed?
> 
> 
> are you retarded or just baiting ?


Answer the question!




> how do you think Apple got to the leading positions I listed?

----------


## Cthulhu

> the only true "innovations" by apple were the "Apple 1" and "Apple II" and the first Mac


You are hopelessly stuck in the past!

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Butterfly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> ...


Just as I thought - when pressed to answer a relevant question, you can't.

----------


## Butterfly

> Originally Posted by Butterfly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> ...


again I am questioning how stupid or just simply how fanatic you are ? we already answered that question like 100 times in this thread or other

do you also suffer from "bi-polar" memory loss ?

----------


## Cthulhu

> again I am questioning how stupid or just simply how fanatic you are ? we already answered that question like 100 times in this thread or other


... then it should be easy for you to answer the question, yet here you are, avoiding it.

Gee, why is that?

----------


## hazz

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> Au contraire ... he do you think Apple got to the leading positions I listed?
> 
> 
> are you retarded or just baiting ?



no, he's just steve job's calgary. 

though I must say a man blinded by his desire to bang a dead man is far creepier than a man blinded by his desire to bang the PM.

----------


## Cthulhu

> no, he's just steve job's calgary. 
> 
> though I must say a man blinded by his desire to bang a dead man is far creepier than a man blinded by his desire to bang the PM.


I guess it's too much to ask for you to make an attempt at making sense, or maybe even staying on topic?

----------


## Cthulhu

I just asking you to answer a simple question, butterfly - yet, you evade it.

Duly noted.

----------


## Butterfly

I answered like 100 fucking times already, so get another fucking hobby you fucking idiot

did that answer it ?  :Smile:

----------


## Cujo

Cthulhu is the kind of devoted mindless malleable  muppet companies love.
He's been SOLD baby.
He bought the whole thing, no more need for thinking.

----------


## hazz

> Originally Posted by Butterfly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> ...


The same way that McDonald's became one of the biggest retailers of fast food in the world. marketing and McDonald's I don't think the quality of their food had anything to do with it.

----------


## Cthulhu

> I answered like 100 fucking times already, so get another fucking hobby you fucking idiot
> 
> did that answer it ?


Nope, it didn't. You just keep avoiding answering. It's very obvious. 

Because you don't actually know, because you never thought about it. Isn't that it?

----------


## Cthulhu

> The same way that McDonald's became one of the biggest retailers of fast food in the world. marketing and McDonald's I don't think the quality of their food had anything to do with it.


Thanks for helping out butterfly. He was really lost. 

Marketing, uh ... huh...

Microsoft spends 6x more on marketing than Apple. What happened?

MacDonalds' sells convenience, so you are close.

----------


## Cujo

^ there are a number of reasons.
Apples just better at marketing for a start, and have targeted their market, the hipster doofus segment.
They've positioned themselves as the 'cool' product.
Also keep in mind microsoft sells software that can be loaded on any PC other than an Apple.
Apple sell an integrated system.
Quite different.
Any difference in market share cannot be put down to Apple being a better product, no matter how big of a fanboy you are.

----------


## Butterfly

> marketing


shhht, don't tell him, let him dance first for a while

----------


## hazz

> Originally Posted by hazz
> 
> 
> The same way that McDonald's became one of the biggest retailers of fast food in the world. marketing and McDonald's I don't think the quality of their food had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> Thanks for helping out butterfly. He was really lost. 
> 
> Marketing, uh ... huh...
> ...


Macdonalds sell you shit that will put you in an early grave, they market it well. Apple are very much the same, except it's more assembling their products that will kill you.

Just an unpleasant aggressive company, that thinks the world owes it a living.... As its patent behaviour is demonstrating

----------


## Cthulhu

So, now when it's down to brass tacks, you guys are just reduced to misrepresentations, lies, and desperate claims?  Glad we have that settled.

"... assembling their products will kill you ..." - seriously, do you even bother vetting the crap you write? WTF are you talking about??

"... Any difference in market share cannot be put down to Apple being a better product ..." - really desperate, aren't you?

----------


## Butterfly

:rofl:

----------


## Cujo

> - really desperate, aren't you?


Why the fuck would I be 'desperate'?
I don't give a fuck, just educating you to the realities of the business world.
You seem to be really emotionally invested in this.
Don't be such a fucking tool.

----------


## hazz

^^ I won't give you one of drbobs google wank screen shots. But if ouare to do a search on google using a mix of the following keywords, you will find out that people are just dying to get those nice shiny apple products to you. 

Apple,  workers, health, death, suicide, hexane

----------


## Cthulhu

> ^^ I won't give you one of drbobs google wank screen shots. But if ouare to do a search on google using a mix of the following keywords, you will find out that people are just dying to get those nice shiny apple products to you. 
> 
> Apple,  workers, health, death, suicide, hexane


How about you familiarize yourself with some facts, first?

In your "search terms" replace "Apple" with "Dell" or "Acer" or "Sony" - in other words, these are the same factories, assembly lines and workers that assemble *every* big brand electronic item. 

Well, actually, let me correct that - the crappy cheap PCs and plastic tablets so highly extolled by some on this thread are manufactured by different companies in China, under far, far worse conditions, but I bet that's a "business reality" you'd rather not deal with. 

Furthermore, Apple is also the only company that regularly, and at length, inspects its supply chain for violations, corrects them, and lists what they found (and corrected) publicly on their site. No other manufacturer actually gives a crap (and neither do you, it seems, unless it's something you can pin on Apple). 

Additionally, Foxconn pays the highest salary in China for such workers, and has just gone through multiple raises that Apple encouraged. Foxconn also paid the highest death benefits of any company in China, which was behind their suicide incidents - because the suicides stopped when Foxconn discontinued the death benefits. Odd, that. 

Finally, how about you using the magic of Google to look up the name "Mike Daisy" and learn why and how he lst his honorary degree? Let's just say, count yourself lucky you don't have an honorary degree.

----------


## Cthulhu

> I don't give a fuck, just educating you to the realities of the business world.


I understand that you are probably so jaded that it is un-fathomable to you that a business actually intends, and succeeds, in producing a high-quality product.

Your stated assertion that you won't even consider the possibility of such, shows your bias, your agenda, and that whatever business you might be involved in, I certainly am not interested in your products, as you just confirmed that quality would not be your concern.

----------


## Cujo

> Originally Posted by Koojo
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck, just educating you to the realities of the business world.
> 
> 
> I understand that you are probably so jaded tat it is up fathomable to you that a business actually intends, and succeeds, in producing a high-quality product.
> 
> Your stated assertion that you won't even consider the possibility of such, shows your bias, your agenda, and that whatever business you might be involved in, I certainly am not interested in your products, as you just confirmed that quality would not be your concern.


I said nothing of the sort.
I said that good/bad quality is not the reason Apple has such a high market share.
The reason is marketing.
How much are Apple paying you by the way?
A regular consumer doesn't have this level of emotional investment in a product unless they're getting paid, or maybe you're just a nutter.

----------


## Cthulhu

> I said nothing of the sort.
> I said that good/bad quality is not the reason Apple has such a high market share.
> The reason is marketing.


So, you agree then that Apple *is* producing high-quality products - the point is, of course good marketing contributes to the marketing becoming aware of a product, and initially purchasing it. This explains big opening weekends for crappy movies.

Nevertheless, good (even excellent) marketing can not sustain a shitty product - witness the movie metaphor, where word-of-mouth for a crappy movie can result in a box office drop-off of 80% or more in the second weekend.

If Apple were making crappy products, they could still initially sell them because they employ excellent marketing - yet if customers were not satisfied by the product or the customer service, Apple would suffer huge product return rates, and subsequent product revisions would experience diminishing sales.

This is not the case.

Albeit, ironically, that is exactly what is happening in the case of most Android tablets (resellers clocking in up to 80% return rates) and higher than average return rates for Android phones (not 80%, obviously, as that would be ridiculous - the 30%-40% bandied about at some point was highly doubtful. The real number is more than likely around 15%-20% ) (of course, iPhone return rates are at 1.7%. Hard to argue with quality, I guess.)





> How much are Apple paying you by the way?


You keep repeating yourself, you realize that? You do understand that most intelligent people are perfectly capable of seeing your question the first time, and answering it - though I do understand that might not be a demographic you are familiar with, judging by our conversation.




> A regular consumer doesn't have this level of emotional investment in a product unless they're getting paid, or maybe you're just a nutter.


Hmmm, so you say - sad, bitter, curmudgeon who holds absolutely no passion for anything in life. Sad. Really.

----------


## Cujo

> Originally Posted by Koojo
> 
> 
> I said nothing of the sort.
> I said that good/bad quality is not the reason Apple has such a high market share.
> The reason is marketing.
> 
> 
> So, you agree then that Apple *is* producing high-quality products - .


Are you stupid?
I don't agree anything of the sort.
If you can read I said good or bad, quality is irrelevant, because it's the marketing that does the job, not the quality.
Just as another poster pointed out, macdonalds sells shit food but has a high market penetration in the junkfood market.

----------


## Cthulhu

Okay, so leaving aside the marketing aspect - which we can agree all manufacturers employ, but Apple excels at -- would you agree or disagree that Apple products are of high quality, then?

If so, how and why do you agree and disagree?

The point is quite simple - you get initial sales from marketing, but you get repeat sales and new customers by delivering a product that satisfies your consumers enough to want not just the next one, but also others from your product line.

In the case of MacDonald's, they deliver convenience and consistency. 

What does Apple deliver (bearing in mind that their sales and market size not only goes way beyond fanboy status, by now, but it also places curmudgeons like yourselves in an ever shrinking minority...)

----------


## Cthulhu

> Are you stupid?


As for your seminal question, no I'm not... though I am starting to believe that you must be, for spending hours of your time, tilting at windmills, on an internet forum.

I believe someone said once that such behavior makes you an "obsessive nutcase", or words to that effect? You might want to watch your obsessive behavior.

----------


## Cujo

> Okay, so leaving aside the marketing aspect - which we can agree all manufacturers employ, but Apple excels at -- would you agree or disagree that Apple products are of high quality.


No idea.
The problem with apple is their products are not comptable with non apple devices.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> 
> Okay, so leaving aside the marketing aspect - which we can agree all manufacturers employ, but Apple excels at -- would you agree or disagree that Apple products are of high quality. 
> 
> 
> No idea.
> The problem with apple is their products are not comptable with non apple devices.


That comes as a surprise to me and many others - as compatibility of tons of non-Apple devices is baked into the OS. 

- my Samsung printer, upon being plugged in, the OS informs me that it wants to download drivers, does so automatically, and upon completion the printer is ready and prints.

- my Logitech HD cam just works right away and is recognized without any need of a driver by any video applications. 

- my Logitech USB speakers work right away after being plugged in. 

- my Canon scanner, works right away, without needing any drivers, and is recognized by any software that is capable of scanning or acquiring images. 

- my Canon digital camera, same thing. Plug it in, and iPhoto launches, sees all the pictures, and can work on them. Ditto any image supporting apps. 

- my Fuji 3D camera. Same thing. No drivers needed. 

- ditto or any external USB drives, USB adapters, SDCard adapters.... So far, when I come across a device that is not supported OOTB, it is more an exception than anything else. 

Oh, and as for iPhones and iPads - aside from working on Macs and PCs, but they print to the same printers, via Bluetooth can work with any wireless car kits and headphones, and will work fine with any external Bluetooth  keyboards, even those not made by Apple.

What else?

So, based on those facts, it seems to me that you are arguing without actually knowing what you are talking about. You do realize that Macs no longer have tiny 9" black/white screens, right?

----------


## baldrick

apple has now patented "lying on the internet" - daffy is not in breach as he is a personal friend of the dead cnut

but the rest of you fcukers can forget prior art , if you have bullshitted on the internet you had better start lubing up your arse

unless of course you do not live in a country that sucks seppo cock

Single Document

----------


## Cthulhu

Funny how quiet Koojo got. 



That's from 1985. Things have changed. A little.

----------


## Cujo

> Funny how quiet Koojo got.


Still waiting to hear how much you get paid for this.

----------


## PlanK

^^

The avatar says "hetero", but the post screams "GAY!!!"

----------


## Cthulhu

> Still waiting to hear how much you get paid for this.


You can't be illiterate, because you demonstrate being able to read and write, so maybe you don't pay attention, since I already answered your question several times - though nice to see that you confirm being an obsessive nutcase (I believe thats the term you used to describe your behavior, yes?)

That said, you sure get awfully quiet about it when I explained and demonstrated how little you know about what you are talking about (ie you are continuously factually wrong). I sure wonder how much you would go on about it if I were factually wrong about something you are passionate about (but we also already established that there is no such thing and that you  lead a boring, dispassionate life if it weren't for alcohol, hookers or footie - items you feel are meaningful, no doubt).

(Oh, hint: "nothing")

----------


## harrybarracuda

Daffy is the ultimate Apple Fucktard. Only wankers like him assume because you are paying a ridiculous price you are getting a "high quality" product.

In reality it's shit.

Just a shame the Syrian isn't around still telling people "you're holding it wrong" and giving out free rubber cases to cover up their fucking howlers.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Cujo

> Originally Posted by Koojo
> 
> 
> Still waiting to hear how much you get paid for this.
> 
> 
> You can't be illiterate, because you demonstrate being able to read and write, so maybe you don't pay attention, since I already answered your question several times


You said billions.

----------


## hazz

> Just a shame the Syrian isn't around still telling people "you're holding it wrong" and giving out free rubber cases to cover up their fucking howlers.



Wasn't that because when designing the iphone 4 with its outer case as the aerial.... they forgot that people would hold the dam thing and become part of the aerial, thus detuning it

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Koojo
> ...


So, he can be taught! Hallelujah!

----------


## Cujo

> Originally Posted by Koojo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> ...


Still waiting.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Koojo
> ...


So am I.

Ciao!

----------


## PlanK

A Dutch court  ordered Apple to pay damages to Samsung over a   patent violation in the Netherlands, the latest twist in the global   legal battle waged by the two rival phone and computer makers.   
          Apple and Samsung have been  suing each other in about a dozen  countries for the last few years as  they compete globally for consumers  in the fast-growing markets for  smart phones and tablet computers.   
          The  US company has accused Samsung of "slavishly" copying the  iPhone and  iPad tablet through products that run on Google's Android  software. The  Korean firm has counter-sued with claims accusing Apple  of infringing  its patents.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Good to see another judge seeing Apple for what it is: a nuisance litigator.




> *                                 Federal judge in Chicago throws out Apple v. Motorola patent suit                                             * 
> 
>                                                                             BY SUN-TIMES STAFF                      						                         							June 22, 2012 11:34PM 						                 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated: June 22, 2012 11:49PM
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

And yet another example of how they rip off their gullible customers:




> Apple e-book price fixing trial set for 2013
>  									 										By Mikey Campbell
> Published: 12:22 AM EST (09:22 PM PST) 
>   
>  *A U.S. judge on Friday said that Apple  will go to trial in 2013 over alleged collusion with a number of major  publishing houses to fix the price of e-books sold through the  iBookstore.*
> 
> U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New  York said that Apple and two publishers will face a United States  antitrust lawsuit in a bench trial  on June 3, 2013 that will decide whether the companies conspired to fix  e-book prices before the iPad was launched in 2010, reports _Reuters_.
> 
> The U.S. government first leveled its antitrust suit  against Apple and the two publishing houses in early April following a  Department of Justice investigation into the matter. Apple denies  the allegations and goes further, saying that it broke up Amazon's  purported e-book monopoly. Amazon was, and still is, the predominant  leader in the e-book market thanks in part to the company's Kindle line  of eReaders.
> ...

----------


## baldrick

> The US company has accused Samsung of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad tablet


but with  3.5mm stereo port and a micro usb port - why didn't they 'slavishly' copy apples business model with its proprietary rippoff ports ?

----------


## Cthulhu

> The US company has accused Samsung of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad tablet
> 			
> 		
> 
> but with  3.5mm stereo port and a micro usb port - why didn't they 'slavishly' copy apples business model with its proprietary rippoff ports ?


Funny you mention that - they did:




> Samsung's proprietary 30-pin connector port sits on the bottom flanked by small stereo speakers





> The Samsung tablet connects via proprietary (yet strangely familiar) 30-pin USB.





> Samsung's proprietary 30-pin connector


Nice self-goal you shot yourself, there.

 :smiley laughing: 

So, why all the hate and emotion about a product you don't use, and why do other people, being satisfied with a product you don't use, affect you so negatively?

----------


## harrybarracuda

Personally I don't hate it, it's worthless shit.

But I do hate the airheads that spout on about it all the time as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Clueless fucktards the lot of them.

----------


## Cthulhu

So, why all the hate and emotion about people that you'll likely never meet, and most of all, who don't give a rat's ass about you? You appear far too emotionally invested in your obsessive hate. Why is that?

I'm guessing it's because you're a dinosaur, and you know it.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Irrelevant to the argument really.

The point is pathetic arselickers like yourself keep trying to blow Apple smoke up people's arses, and it's our job to make sure that people are fully informed that if they go the Apple route they are essentially paying over the top for a shiny piece of bling; and as above, once tied into the Apple "ecosystem", they are going to get ripped off on accessories, books, etc.

Must pain you to read this stuff, kneeling at the Jobs altar as you do. I can see why you are bringing emotion into it.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Cthulhu

Not really irrelevant, but I can see why you would want to say so -- after all, it *is* the argument.





> and it's our job to make sure


*our* ?? 55555!

Really, you are getting paid for this? To paraphrase Koojo : "How much?"

Pain me? Why? No one is taking you seriously, judging by commenters like larvidchr, and others...

The only one I can see here, seething and obsessively posting away in threads that don't concern you, is you...

----------


## harrybarracuda

> The only one I can see here, seething and obsessively posting away in threads that don't concern you


I started this thread, peabrain. WTF are you doing in it, apart from eulogising your beloved dead leader and defending the faith?

I thought I was on your beloved ban list, so why don't you fuck off, eh?

----------


## baldrick

> Nice self-goal you shot yourself, there.


not when it was the galaxy S 2 I was talking about

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> Nice self-goal you shot yourself, there.
> 
> 
> not when it was the galaxy S 2 I was talking about


Uh huh.... suuuuuuuuure you did - because you communicated that so well...



It's just sad when you can't even admit you screwed up your own argument. A simple "whoops, I didn't know that" would have worked far better.

----------


## Cthulhu

> The only one I can see here, seething and obsessively posting away in threads that don't concern you
> 			
> 		
> 
> I started this thread, peabrain. WTF are you doing in it, apart from eulogising your beloved dead leader and defending the faith?
> 
> I thought I was on your beloved ban list, so why don't you fuck off, eh?


"... obsessively posting away..."

----------


## harrybarracuda

Ah, now I understand your mind numbing, repetitive evangelism.




> Sat, Jun 23, 2012 | 15:13 BST
> 
> *Cthulhu Saves The World releases for Android, iOS, Mac next week*
> 
>                   Cthulhu Saves the World will release on Mac, iOS and Android June  28, according to Zeboyd Games. The ports were developed in  collaboration with TinkerHouse Games, and contain the same content found  in the XBL and PC version of the game. Thanks, IndieGames.


Look at the pretty picture....   

 :rofl: 



Use a potion! Use a potion!

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Butterfly

oh priceless, Quack Quack is also a gamer  :rofl:

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ Seriously dude, you didn't get that from his ridiculous nick?!

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

> oh priceless, Quack Quack is also a gamer


You're funny when you're fishing, however desperately...

Nope, not a gamer. In fact, can't stand dumb gaming.

I bet you are all over it.

----------


## harrybarracuda

You can't argue with him, Daffy, he's evil.

USE A POTION!

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## harrybarracuda

I enjoyed reading this so much I thought I'd post another version. Wonderful headline.




> *Apple setback in battle with Android*
> 
>      Apple’s claim it suffered loss of  market share as a result of Motorola’s alleged infringement of patents  in Android system called ‘wild conjecture’ as US judge rules   
>                         DAN LEVINE and JESSICA DYE                                            Published:           2012/06/25 09:43:08 AM         
> 
> A US judge ruled on Friday that Apple cannot pursue an  injunction against Google’s Motorola Mobility unit, effectively ending a  key case for the iPhone maker in the smartphone patent wars.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Wild conjecture". Couldn't put it better myself.

Well actually, I did: "Frivolous".

 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

Interesting that several of those involved have already settled. I  suppose Apple have the cash to waste on legal fees, let's hope they  lose. They've been ripping off consumers for far too long.




> *DoJ ruling set for next June* 
> 
>                                                25.06.12                  | The Bookseller News Team             
>  Penguin, Macmillan and Apple must wait just under a year for the ruling on the e-book price fixing lawsuit, according to reports.
>       The trial date for the Department of Justice's e-book price-fixing   lawsuit has been set for 3rd June 2013, with Judge Denise Cote  choosing  the date just under a year from now. The trial will test  Apple,  Macmillan and Penguin's case, which denies collusion and  price-fixing  over e-books.
>       Meanwhile, the settlement agreement entered into by the three  other  publisher defendents, Hachette, Simon & Schuster and  HarperCollins,  with the Department of Justice and the states over the  case, should be  agreed "by 10th August". 
>       The Department of Justice filed the suit against the publishers  and the  technology company on 11th April this year, finding that the  five US  publishers and Apple had made a "collective effort to end  retail price  competition by coordinating their transition to an agency  model across  all retailers".

----------


## harrybarracuda

If they get nothing else out of it, they've given us a great new logo!

 :smiley laughing: 




> *News*
> 
>    
>                  By | Anna Leach       25th June 2012 08:28          *Apple slapped with 75 lawsuits by staff of titsup French computer biz*
> 
> *Give us our Jobs back, say Fruit of Fury protesters*
> 
>             Apple was sued 75 times on Tuesday as former  employees of reseller eBizcuss filed individual suits against the  iPhone-maker in Paris.
> eBizcuss was the biggest reseller of Apple products in France until the end of May, when the firm went into administration. In December the eBizcuss CEO Francois Prudent claimed that the financial woes of the reseller were a direct result of Apple's business practices.
> ...

----------


## Butterfly

> You can't argue with him, Daffy, he's evil.
> 
> USE A POTION!


wouldn't that be an iPotion  :rofl:

----------


## Cthulhu

Just a tad obsessive, aren't you?

----------


## harrybarracuda

>_Harry Barracuda casts a spell of "Fuck off you droning retard" at Gameboy_

 :bananaman:

----------


## harrybarracuda

*Chortle* indeed. That highlighted phrase is quite scary. Screw your employees by brainwashing them into thinking they don't deserve proper reward. Ugh.




> *The low-wage ‘genius’ of Apple*
> 
>  														By  Emi Kolawole
> 
> A sign for the iPhone 4S at an Apple Store in New York. 					(BRENDAN MCDERMID - REUTERS) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

I particularly like the use of the word "geniuses" to describe someone with the intellectual capacity of a gnat who knows how to turn wifi on and off on a frigging iphone.

 :Smile: 




> * 	      5 signs that Apple is a cult      	*
> 
> *According to a New York Times expose, the  company's retail stores are staffed with true believers, many of whom  tolerate paltry paychecks to answer a higher calling*
> 
>        	    posted on June 25, 2012, at 12:07 PM
>  
>  													 																	 																									Clad in holiday red, employees await the  opening of Apple's Grand Central Terminal store in New York City in  December 2011.																										Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images 																								    SEE 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Cthulhu

> I particularly like the use of the word "geniuses" to describe someone with the intellectual capacity of a gnat who knows how to turn wifi on and off on a frigging iphone.


So, we should consider you a "genius", then?

----------


## harrybarracuda

Well compared to you, probably yes, but in the wider picture, no.

----------


## Butterfly

> According to a New York Times expose, the company's retail stores are staffed with true believers, many of whom tolerate paltry paychecks to answer a higher calling


and they say Religion was dead, it just needed a revamp  :mid: 




> Upon learning that they've been hired, many newly minted employees burst into tears.


oh Christ  :rofl:

----------


## harrybarracuda

Understandable, they've probably just read the contract they signed.

----------


## Cujo

[QUOTE=harrybarracuda;2139712]*Chortle* indeed. That highlighted phrase is quite scary. Screw your employees by brainwashing them into thinking they don't deserve proper reward. Ugh.




> *The low-wage genius of Apple*
> 
>  																	(BRENDAN MCDERMID - REUTERS) 
>  a sense among Apple employees that working for Apple is not so  much a job with long hours, loud crowds and a less-than-stellar paycheck   it is a calling.


ITARDS. :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

----------


## Cthulhu

Again, what is it to you?

It beats flipping burgers, or having to lie to your customers when peddling Android phones or PCs in shitty stores....

You've probably never even been inside an Apple Store.

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ Are you kidding? Apple employees lie every day, they have to in order to pretend that the piece of shit they are selling is actually worth the ridiculously inflated price they're charging for it.

And don't forget Apple Corporate lie as well, as proven by the multimillion dollar fine handed to them by an Australian judge for telling people their shit phones would work in Australia knowing that they wouldn't.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Cthulhu

> And don't forget Apple Corporate lie as well, as proven by the multimillion dollar fine handed to them by an Australian judge for telling people their shit phones would work in Australia knowing that they wouldn't.


What phones are those? I must have missed that bit of news. Could you maybe refresh your knowledge base, there?

So, have you ever been in an Apple Store?

All I see, so far, is that you lie pathologically. You claiming others lie is pretty amusing.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Oh you're right. It's the iFad they *LIED* about. As if it makes a difference.

It still proves what a money-grubbing bunch of leeches they are.




> *Apple fined in Australia for misleading iPad advertising*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>                           MELBOURNE |          Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:50am IST         
> 
> ...


And why would I actually go in a Apple shop? It demonstrates the same shallow, superficial and overhyped properties as the products it sells.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Oh you're right. It's the iFad they *LIED* about. As if it makes a difference.


Ah, okay - so you don't actually know what you were talking about, and you made stuff up. Good to know.





> And why would I actually go in a Apple shop? It demonstrates the same shallow, superficial and overhyped properties as the products it sells.


How do you know, if you have never been?

So you don't actually know what you were talking about, and you made stuff up. Good to know.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
> 
> 
> Oh you're right. It's the iFad they *LIED* about. As if it makes a difference.
> 
> 
> Ah, okay - so you don't actually know what you were talking about, and you made stuff up. Good to know.
> 
> 
> ...


Who needs to go into an Apple shop? They're all nice and open to entice the gullible itard in, aren't they?

As for making stuff up, my confusing one Apple toy with another does not detract from the irrefutable fact that *Apple LIED to consumers to make them buy a product that does not work as advertised*.

Nice try though.

----------


## Cthulhu

Ah, okay - so you don't actually know what you were talking about, and you made stuff up. Good to know.

----------


## harrybarracuda

And poor Apple have been forced to change yet another *LIE*.




> Mac OS X security fears? Apple backs down on ‘virus-proof’ claims
> 
> June 26, 2012 10:28 am by Joe Svetlik
> 
> Apple has tweaked the marketing blurb on its website, making less of a fuss about how safe Macs are from viruses. Has the recent Flashback trojan made Apple a little less sure of its security skills?
> 
> Time was you could buy a Mac safe in the knowledge it would stay virus-free. But as Macs become more popular, they become more of a target for those looking to spread digital nasties, as the recent Flashback trojan showed. It seems Apple is aware of this, and is admitting its computers aren’t quite as secure as it once thought.
> 
> The Cupertino company has changed the marketing spiel on its “Why you’ll love a Mac” page. Whereas once the page claimed: “It [a Mac] doesn’t get PC viruses”, now the blurb reads: “Built to be safe”. And where once it said you could “Safeguard your data. By doing nothing”, it now just says: “Safety. Built right in.”
> ...


That's a fucking good hitrate, actually.

 :Smile:

----------


## hazz

> According to a New York Times expose, the company's retail stores are staffed with true believers, many of whom tolerate paltry paychecks to answer a higher calling


Reminds me of the staffers I worked with a schlumberger during a contract.


^One big fat lie, that must have been a red flag to the virus writers

----------


## Jesus Jones

A company that lies is quite fitting for delusional users!

----------


## Butterfly

I think Quack Quack has a point, we shouldn't be blaming Apple, they are in their good right to abuse the gullibility of their consumers  :rofl:

----------


## Cthulhu

Whoops!

Judge Koh issues injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 | Electronista

Judge Koh issues injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1


Sales ban effective after Apple pays $2.6 million bond

Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh has issued an injunction against Samsung to stop it from selling the the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the United States. The judge's order becomes effective once Apple posts a $2.6 million bond to protect Samsung against damages if the injunction is overturned.

The judge had previously denied Apple the requested injunction, which it says has caused harm to the company because Samsung has infringed on patents as well as copied the look and feel of the iPad. A federal appeals court overturned that decision with a statement suggesting that Samsung had infringed with the tablet. Her judgement today was clear in saying that "although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products."

Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 line, currently on sale, is considered a separate product line, and not affected by today's injunction. There are still intellectual property issues at stake that do involve the Galaxy Tab 2, but these are due to be ironed out in the trial at the end of July.

Samsung has not released a comment on the injunction. Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet reiterated a previous statement saying that Samsung's "blatant copying" is wrong. The judge has given no reason why she issued the injunction tonight, rather than during the scheduled hearing, which was set for Friday.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Whoops indeed.




> *Apple lawsuit preventing sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1*
> 
>  June 27th, 2012  Roy Smyth 
> 
> 
> A  US judge has raised a preliminary injunction that says once Apple  coughs up a $2.6 million dollar bond, Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 will  have to be removed from store shelves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoops again!




> LIKELY APPEAL
> Samsung  will likely seek to appeal Koh's ruling to a federal appeals court in  Washington, DC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual  property disputes.
> "Apple sought a  preliminary injunction of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, based on a single  design patent that addressed just one aspect of the product's overall  design," Samsung said in a statement. "Should Apple continue to make  legal claims based on such a generic design patent, design innovation  and progress in the industry could be restricted."
> The  South Korean firm said it would take necessary legal steps, and did not  expect the ruling to have a significant impact on its business, as it  has a broad range of products. It brought out three tablet models last  year alone.


Whoops the Market likes it!




> In Seoul, Samsung shares rose 3 percent in a flat  market, rebounding from 4-month lows early this week amid concerns over  second-quarter profit growth.


No, I think you're going to have to wait for the trial before you get thrilled.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Butterfly

apple and lawsuits, they just fucking love it, since the win311 days

----------


## harrybarracuda

And they got an injunction banning the Nexus. Are they still selling those in the US?

Perhaps if they spent more money on development, we wouldn't have stuff like this hitting the news. Poor Uyghurs:




> *New Mac virus making the rounds, uses MaControl backdoor*
> 
>                                                                                                    Published on Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 16:17 |   Source : Tech2.com
>                                  Updated at Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 16:25   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier this year, Macs around the world were  infected by a malware called Flashback and it looks like there’s  another one on the way. Kaspersky Lab has now detected a malware that  seems to be targeted at Uyghur activists using Macs. Kaspersky Lab is  terming the attack as an APT (advanced persistent threat). It appears  the virus spreads via email. Victims get a mail with a zip file in it,  the zip file contains a JPG image and a Mac OS X application. The  application present in the zip file is a MaControl backdoor and it  infects both i386 and PowerPC Macs. Once the user runs the application,  the virus is connected to a control server on the internet from which it  is sent commands. Other operations such as listing and transferring  files can also be done. Remote command orders can also be sent from the  control server. Kaspersky detects the virus under the alias -  Backdoor.OSX.MaControl.b.

----------


## PlanK

^

So most MacTards are gonna run an antivirus sweep, find they have a backdoor virus, and blame it on that drunken night they spent with Greg from the genius bar.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Apple's patent absurdity exposed at last 		 					

US  appeal court judge Richard Posner has finally said the unsayable: that  Apple's and other tech firms' patent battles are a ridiculous abuse of  intellectual property law


Sunday 1 July 2012


 										US appeal court judge Richard Posner  ridiculed Apple's arguments in his landmark dismissal of its patent case  against Google. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian




 	      	    There are, I submit, good grounds to argue that Richard Allen Posner, judge of the United States court of appeals for the seventh circuit,  is the most infuriating man on the surface of the planet, but they are  not the ones you'd expect. He is not, for example, a horrible human  being: on the contrary, people whose judgment I respect describe him in  unequivocally admiring tones. Professor Tim Wu of Columbia Law School, for example, calls Posner "probably America's greatest living jurist". And my friend Larry Lessig of Harvard once wrote of him that "there isn't a federal judge I respect more, both as a judge and person".
So  the problem with Posner is not his awfulness, but the reverse: his  astonishing intelligence, energy and provocative creativity. For in  addition to being a very senior judge, he is also a distinguished legal  academic at the University of Chicago Law School (the _Journal of Legal Studies_ describes him as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century). With Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, he maintains an extraordinary blog  in which the two men exchange thoughtful, essay-length arguments on an  almost daily basis. He is the author of more than 40 books, many of them  on legal matters, but also ranging over much wider topics: a study of  public intellectuals, for example; a treatise on ageing; and works on  terrorism, law and literature and democracy. And – here's the really  annoying bit – none of them are crap. So to those of us who struggle to  produce a book a decade, or even a column a week, Posner stands there as  a permanent, reproachful reminder of our inadequacies and indolence.
What  makes him such a stimulating thinker is that he has little time for  conventional wisdom or political correctness. He's not enamoured of  animal rights, for example, and is famous for his belief that economics  provides a useful perspective for thinking about law. Thus in a recent  argument with Becker about New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal  to ban the sale of large sugary drinks, Posner writes: "I am not  particularly interested in saving the obese from themselves. I am  concerned about the negative externalities of obesity‚ the costs that  the obese impose on others. Obesity kills, but slowly, and en route to  dying the obese run up heavy bills that, to a great extent, others pay."
What brings Posner to mind this Sunday morning, however, is not his views on obesity but on intellectual property.  You may have noticed that in the last few years the world's biggest  technology companies have become lavish patrons of the legal profession.  Apple,  Google, Samsung, HTC, Microsoft, Oracle, HP, Amazon and others have  being suing one another in courts around the globe, alleging that they  are infringing one another's patents. The resulting bonanza for lawyers  has long passed the point of insanity, but up to now the world's courts  seem powerless to make the litigants see sense. As a result, judges find  themselves allocated the role of pawns in what are effectively business  negotiations between global companies.
Until now. What happened  is that Posner, in an unusual move, got himself assigned to a lower  court to hear a case in which Apple was suing Google (which had  purchased Motorola in order to get its hands on the phone company's  patent portfolio) over alleged infringement of Apple's smartphone  patents. Posner listened to the lawyers and then threw out the case. But  what was really dramatic was the way he eviscerated the legal  submissions. At one point, for example, Apple claimed that Google was  infringing one of its patents on the process of unlocking a phone by  swiping the screen. "Apple's argument that a tap is a zero-length  swipe," said Posner, "is silly. It's like saying that a point is a  zero-length line."
Posner's formal judgment was issued on 22 June. He dismissed the case,  writing in his opinion that neither side had proved any damages caused  by the other party. More significantly, his ruling came "with  prejudice", which means neither side can reopen the case to attempt to  prove damages for a second time.
This is a landmark judgment, one  of those moments when someone – in this case an eminent judge rather  than a small child – points out that the emperor is indeed stark naked.  Patent wrangling between technology companies has become both  pathological and pointless. It is also a gross abuse of intellectual  property law that uses the courts as tools for gaining competitive  advantage. The people who should be deciding whether Apple's phones are  better – more functional, reliable, easier to use – than Motorola's are  consumers, not judges. By striking a blow for common sense in what had  become a madhouse, Posner has set a really encouraging precedent. The  only downside is that he will now  probably write a book about it. And I  bet it will be a bloody good read too. Some people are just too  annoying  for words.

----------


## baldrick

> a tap is a zero-length swipe


these zealots were tapped on the head at birth - the religious fervour would be frightening if their claims were not so ridiculous

----------


## Cthulhu

Apple's on a roll of winning... Also, pay attention to the last paragraph. Poor Samsung, poor Motorola, and poor Google 

Apple cleared of infringing charges on Samsung patent | Electronista

Apple cleared of infringing charges on Samsung patent

Second legal victory in one day in same court


Hot on the heels of a preliminary injunction barring US sales of Samsung's and Google's flagship phone the Galaxy Nexus and an earlier injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 Android tablet, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh also cleared Apple of a Samsung charge of infringement of a UTMS patent. The ruling was a victory for Apple, as well as for its position that FRAND-eligible patents shouldn't be used as legal weapons.

Apple's win was limited -- it is still facing charges of infringement on a total of (now) six other patents Samsung is asserting in a case that is scheduled to go to trial at the end of July. Apple had made motions to invalidate another two of the patents Samsung claims Apple is infringing by arguing that they were "indefinite" (meaning overly broad and vague), but Judge Koh denied Apple's motion. She indicated that Apple's concerns had merit but could be addressed at the trial without throwing them out entirely. The full ruling is seen below.

Patent case analyst Florian Mueller believes that the ruling foreshadows further narrowing of claims, possibly on both sides. The ruling in Apple's favor means that if the judge asks for more narrowing on the Samsung side, they have little choice but to comply. For its part, Samsung has asked for summary judgements on all of Apple's claims of infringement, and Mueller believes Koh will rule on that soon -- and may give Samsung summary judgements on some of the Apple claims.

The ruling and injunctions bode poorly for Samsung's chances at the forthcoming trial -- almost all of the claims it is asserting are based on standards-essential FRAND patents, which recent US judges at both the federal and ITC level, including Judge Koh, have routinely said should not be eligible for injunctive relief. In a separate case, Judge Richard A. Posner lambasted Motorola for attempting to assert a standards-essential patent for UTMS as its one counter-claim against Apple, which may close the door on any attempt by Samsung to make the same claim in future cases.

In related news, the FTC has ordered an investigation into the abuse of FRAND patents by Motorola (and thus Google) which could expand into actions by companies like Samsung. Motorola and Google are also being similarly investigated for FRAND abuse by the European Commission.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Re: last para, Can't see how they're abusing them if judges keep throwing them out?

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

Just because you claim it, doesn't make it so.

----------


## harrybarracuda

I've only seen this FRAND issue mentioned recently getting thrown out as grounds for a lawsuit.

It doesn't even sound like it contains precise definitions of what is "Fair and Reasonable".

I think the issue might be that companies are supposed to charge the same "fair and reasonable" license fee to every company, and if they've been favouring their mates and overcharging their rivals, they have a case to answer.




> *FRAND or FOSS?*
> 
>   				 					 						Published by Rowan Wilson  on May 4, 2012					  					 						in Community.					  					0 Comments 					 											. 									
> 
>    			 				Standards in technology are generally considered to be a good  thing. Having documented technologies that can be implemented by all  means that businesses can compete on equal terms and consumers benefit  from the effects of this competition. Of course, before a technology can  be standardised, individual technology players need to do the work of  innovation to develop the techniques the standard will encompass.  Sometimes these technology players will have sought to protect their  investment in innovation by obtaining a patent for the innovative  technology they have created. Patents are designed to provide a monopoly  over a specific technological process for the owner, so how does this  monopoly fit in with the idea of a standard?
> 
>  The answer is that it doesn’t, really. In situations where  implementing a standard would necessarily infringe on someone’s patent,  the standards creation bodies will usually try to get the patent’s owner  to agree some terms which will guarantee them a return for their  investment but which will still allow everyone in the market to actually  use the standard in their products. These kinds of terms are often  referred to as RAND or FRAND – standing for _(fair), reasonable and non-discriminatory_.
>  FRAND is a slippery term. There’s no single definition, which makes  determining what is and is not FRAND hard. Most people agree that the  general principle behind FRAND is that the fees or other requirements  for use of the patents in question are not ridiculously high and are the  same for anyone who wishes to implement the standard, whether your best  friend or fiercest competitor.
>  That sounds like a good idea to most people, and for more traditional  hardware and closed source implementations of standards it arguably is.  There can be problems, however, when software under a free or open  source software wishes to implement a standard available under FRAND  terms. For example, the GNU GPL family of licences all contain  conditions that say – in essence – that if a distributor of the software  is forced to pay for the use of a patent in the software, they must  either cease distribution or obtain a licence for everyone (the  schoolroom chewing gum scenario). These conditions are designed to deter  patent owners from pursuing distributors of GPL software, but they mean  that payable FRAND standards and GPL software do not play well  together.
> ...

----------


## Cthulhu

> I've only seen this FRAND issue mentioned recently getting thrown out as grounds for a lawsuit.
> 
> It doesn't even sound like it contains precise definitions of what is "Fair and Reasonable".
> 
> I think the issue might be that companies are supposed to charge the same "fair and reasonable" license fee to every company, and if they've been favouring their mates and overcharging their rivals, they have a case to answer.


Yes, and that's why Google and Moto are being sued...

----------


## harrybarracuda

Sued?

Is that the same as "investigated"?

----------


## Cthulhu

No, "sued" as in lawsuit, moron:

FOSS Patents: Microsoft-Motorola FRAND dispute headed for November jury trial -- no summary judgment

You really are out of touch. Just like any dinosaur.

Microsoft-Motorola FRAND dispute headed for November jury trial -- no summary judgment
Unless Microsoft and Google can agree on a patent cross-license during the next five months, the terms of a license agreement under which Microsoft will be entitled to use, on a worldwide basis, Motorola Mobility's patents essential to the H.264 (video codec) and IEEE 802.11 (WiFi, or WLAN) industry standards will be set at a trial scheduled to commence on November 19, 2012 in the Western District of Washington.

On March 30, 2012, both parties brought motions for partial summary judgment. Microsoft asked the court to determine that Motorola breached its FRAND-related contractual obligations in 2010 when it made offers that Microsoft alleges to have been "blatantly unreasonable". Motorola moved for a determination that Microsoft "repudiated" its rights to a FRAND license by bringing this FRAND enforcement lawsuit instead of previously entering into further negotiations with Motorola.

At a motion hearing on May 7, 2012, Judge James L. Robart lashed out at both parties: "The court is well aware it is being used as a pawn in a global, industry-wide business negotiation." He also indicated a strong inclination to deny both motions for partial summary judgment. Today Judge Robart filed a 28-page decision that explains his reasoning very well.

My interpretation of the order is that Judge Robart's disagreement with Motorola is of a more substantive nature than with Microsoft. Motorola's motion failed because its FRAND agreements with the relevant standard-setting organizations (the ITU and the IEEE) couldn't possibly be interpreted as being conditioned upon Microsoft applying for, or negotiating, a license prior to filing a lawsuit over a disagreement on what the patent holder's FRAND obligations are. In particular, the relevant FRAND commitments lack words that suggest a conditional intent (such as "provided that", "on condition", "as soon as", etc.). Those circumstances won't change between now and the November trial. By contrast, Microsoft's motion was denied for the most part only because Judge Robart determined that the issues it raised weren't ripe. While Microsoft had argued that Motorola's royalty demands were blatantly unreasonable to an extent that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude otherwise, the judge believes there are genuine issues of material fact, i.e., issues that a jury needs to establish. Also, rather than declare Motorola's royalty demand "blatantly unreasonable" at this stage and have a jury set a FRAND rate at trial time, Judge Robart wants the FRAND rate to be determined first in order to then compare Motorola's demand to that rate.

Administrative Law Judge David Shaw at the ITC actually made a determination of unreasonableness, on those same Motorola demands, without firstly determining a FRAND rate. He concluded from the evidence that "Motorola was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a [F]RAND license" to Microsoft, and that Microsoft couldn't possibly have accepted those terms. But the ITC is not a district court. In an ITC investigation, the ALJ -- not a jury -- is the finder of fact. An ITC trial is a bench trial before an ALJ. And the initial determinations of the ALJs are recommendations rather than final decisions: the actual rulings are made by the Commission, the six-member decision-making body at the top of the ITC. That's why a post-hearing initial determination by an ITC judge is made under circumstances that are fundamentally different from the parameters under which a federal judge at a district court rules on a summary judgment motion. Therefore, there's no indication of inconsistency.

By the way, the modus operandi of antitrust regulators is much closer to that of the ITC than that of a district court. The fact that Judge Robart was hesitant to make certain determinations without a jury doesn't mean anything for the ability of regulatory agencies to take a position on the same kind of issue.

Between the motion hearing and today's decision, Judge Robart converted a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction (PIs can last longer than TROs), barring Motorola for the remainder of this FRAND enforcement litigation from enforcing a German H.264 patent injunction against Microsoft. Motorola has appealed this injunction, but I guess it won't get it lifted before the November trial. If Motorola's motion for partial summary judgment had succeeded, the preliminary injunction would probably have gone away, while the failure of Microsoft's motion merely means that it can't get a certain decision now but will ultimately get a license agreement as a result of the trial.

Before the November trial, Microsoft may still be able to do away with some of the evidence Motorola presented in order to claim that its 2.25% demand "was in fact reasonable [F]RAND". Judge Robart's order mentions that Motorola listed approximately 50 license agreements. I don't know that list, nor do I know what Motorola presented to the ITC, but chances are that ALJ Shaw, who concluded that none of the license agreements presented to him supported Motorola's claim, received the same evidence. Again, the difference is that ALJ Shaw is, in a way, his own jury, while Judge Robart wanted to take a conservative approach to this and not prejudge an issue that he felt has to go to trial. But his order notes that Microsoft will be free to bring motions in limine (motions to exclude misleading trial evidence) against any of those license agreements between Motorola and other parties.:

"Although Microsoft asserts that these license agreements are not relevant (and not admissible evidence) with respect to any RAND obligations Motorola has with respect to Microsoft, the court concludes that a determination of the relevance of Motorola's prior license agreements is inherently fact intensive, more appropriate as a motion in limine, and cannot be decided at this time."

Note the last three words: "at this time." This denial is not a "no". It's a "not yet".

As far as the contractual situation between Motorola and the standard-setting organizations is concerned, Judge Robart dismissed a claim made by Motorola at the May 7, 2012 hearing (in contradiction to its earlier representations) that there was no such agreement (with Microsoft as a third-party beneficiary) in place. Judge Robart restated and reinforced his earlier decisions on some of those legal issues. In other words, while Microsoft hasn't made the kind of additional progress it hoped to make, Motorola hasn't persuaded Judge Robart to reconsider any of the positions he previously took. There's only one subissue on which Judge Robart agrees with Motorola to a certain degree: "[b]ecause the IEEE and the ITU agreements anticipate that the parties will negotiate towards a [F]RAND license, it logically does not follow that initial offers must be on [F]RAND terms." Judge Robart concludes that "Motorola need not make initial offers on [F]RAND terms". But this isn't really a problem for Microsoft because a "blatantly unreasonable" offer would still be considered abusive:

"Such behavior would frustrate the purpose behind the agreements by allowing the standard essential patent owner to abuse its power as a standard essential patent holder and extract higher than reasonable royalty rates (or, at a minimum, royalty rates consistently on the high range of RAND terms). Thus, although the language of Motorola's agreements do not require it to make offers on RAND terms, any offer by Motorola (be it an initial offer or an offer during a back-and-forth negotiation) must comport with the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract."

I have no doubt that Judge Robart is as committed as always to the objective of giving FRAND a meaning. And he expects both parties to do what's needed to get there. His order reiterates that Microsoft, which stated its willingness to take a license on FRAND terms at a much earlier point in this litigation than Motorola claimed in a public statement in April, will be expected to honor its commitment to take such a license (the only disagreement being on what the terms should be).

Presumably the court would prefer the parties to work things out so that the November trial doesn't have to happen. But if it has to be held, the concept of FRAND licensing will prevail.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Jesus wept the lawyers are cleaning up, aren't they?

What a fucking waste of court time.

----------


## Cthulhu

That I can certainly agree with.

----------


## Cthulhu

Looking worse and worse for Samsung...


Samsung loses all 12 summary judgement requests | Electronista

*Samsung loses all 12 summary judgement requests*

Coming swiftly after two injunctions barring sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh has also denied Samsung the option of summary judgement motions on all of its claims against Apple -- 12 in all. The decision does not remove the claims from the upcoming trial, but precludes Samsung from any early victories, and casts a shadow on the validity of the claims.

By contrast, Apple used its appeal for summary judgement on only three of Samsung's seven claims, and was rewarded with a dismissal of one of them, now leaving a total of six Samsung claims remaining against Apple's 12 claims. _Samsung's case has been weakened further with the blocking of large portions of Samsung's "expert" testimony_ (although Apple also lost some experts in the process) and a narrowing of additional time granted for new depositions compared to Apple. 

Legal experts say that Samsung's claims are also weak on their face, being based almost entirely on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that are eligible for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing (FRAND), which several judges -- including Judge Koh, who is overseeing this case -- have said should not be used as legal weapons, a key element of Apple's argument against Samsung's claims. At best, Samsung could hope to force Apple to pay for licenses on some of the patents it holds, but at this point is seen as unlikely to win any sales injunctions as Apple has done.

However, the matter is still not settled -- and though Apple's case looks stronger going into the trial, it is likely that the company will have to withdraw some of its own claims (which could be contested in future cases later) in order to narrow down the scope of the case. As patent case analyst Florian Mueller notes, Judge Koh has already restricted the number of hours of speaking time each litigant gets, as well as the number of exhibits. Apple may choose to focus on fewer claims to allow more time for each.

It may also decide to go ahead with a request to issue an injunction against the Galaxy S III, which Apple unsuccessfully tried to block before its US debut. The court may now agree that other Samsung products, such as the S III, are infringing on the same "unified search" patent (which covers Siri and other methodology) and if so should be subject to the same injunction as the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy Tab are under. Such a move could delay the overall trial while Samsung appeals, however, and Apple has so far pursued a strategy of wanting to hurry the trial along while Samsung attempts delays -- a tactic that has reaped benefits thus far.

Mueller believes the judge has already reached a conclusion based on the evidence so far that Samsung (and, by proxy, Google -- which provides the Android software that has been found to be infringing on multiple Apple patents) and is likely to continue enforcing punitive measures until Samsung withdraws or works around the infringing products and software. The language in the decisions so far, he says, indicate that the judge has taken a dim view of Samsung trying to fight Apple with SEPs rather than legitimate examples where Apple is copying a non-essential Samsung patent.

*Apple, by contrast, has been fighting -- and mostly winning* -- against Samsung both on hardware (design) patent infringing as well as software (Android) patent infringing. The latter judgements may ultimately carry more weight, as they will inevitably force Google to become an active defendant in the cases, substantially raising the cost of Android and risking portions of the OS itself.

Mueller notes that when looking at all the cases with results so far, *Android has been found to be violating a total of 11 Apple and Microsoft patents* -- with many other cases (including this one) ongoing, at some point the carriers will tire of defending themselves against software infringements that actually originate from Google.

----------


## Cujo

Apple just paid 60 Million to a Chinese company for the trade name Apple Ipad.
They paid $55,000 for it already to the same company in 2009 but In typical chink style it was never legally transfered, the (Chinese) court upheld that although it had been paid for it still remained the property of the Chinese company.
The no doubt well paid off judge ruled Apple had to pay 60,000,000.00 
Cunts.

----------


## Cthulhu

Yeah, saw that earlier.

ProView initially wanted $400 million - so the last laugh's on Apple. The $60 million are  a drop in the bucket for Apple, and are still not enough to save proView from insolvency (but they were pressured into accepting the deal by their creditors, as it will pay off the primary creditors, leaving proView with nothing).

I bet when they initially sold the iPad license for $55,000 there were "High-Five's" all around, about what a fast one they pulled over the Guaylo company.... then, several months later, there was a rude awakening.

You're right, cunts - I bet they delayed the legal transfer exactly because they were hoping to re-milk the situation. Oh well, joke's on them :-)

----------


## harrybarracuda

I think the issue was that they bought the name from the Taiwanese subsidiary, not the parent company.

----------


## Cthulhu

... which represented itself *as* the parent company (meaning, someone at the subsidiary pocketed himself some cash)

----------


## harrybarracuda

Ah those orientals. Inscrutable. Doesn't say much for Apple's legal department though, does it?

----------


## Cthulhu

What would it say?

A company presenting themselves as the parent company, and giving all impressions that they are, deliberately omits to ratify a license -- and that's Apple's fault?

You can bet that won't happen ever again, to Apple, though.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> What would it say?
> 
> A company presenting themselves as the parent company, and giving all impressions that they are, deliberately omits to ratify a license -- and that's Apple's fault?
> 
> You can bet that won't happen ever again, to Apple, though.






> deliberately omits to ratify a license


Does what?

They told them they owned the iPad copyright for China. I'm guessing some Apple lawyer failed to notice that Taiwan is the "Republic of China", not the "People's Republic of China".

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

I must have missed where you sat in on those meetings.

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ Well if I had they wouldn't be $60,055,000 in the hole, that's for sure.

 :mid:

----------


## Cthulhu

Yeah, you would have probably made sure they are $400 million in the hole.

----------


## hazz

> What would it say?
> 
> A company presenting themselves as the parent company, and giving all impressions that they are, deliberately omits to ratify a license -- and that's Apple's fault?
> 
> You can bet that won't happen ever again, to Apple, though.


Its called due diligence, its why you hire lawyers to vet your contracts. It is a very basic and epic fail on behalf of the lawyers dealing with this. It's a kin to a lorry driver  crashing their van because they forgot they had a break.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Yeah, you would have probably made sure they are $400 million in the hole.


Well that's where you're wrong, because I went to a good school and I know the PRC and the ROC are *not* the same thing.

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

Love you armchair lawyers - I went to a good school too, and I know Chinese *lie*. All the time. I bet you they *were* duly representing the parent company and all due diligence was done. 

All bets are off when they lie, after the facts, and when Chinese courts will usually find in favor of the Chinese plaintif, regardless of the facts of the case.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> All the time. I bet you they *were* duly representing the parent company and all due diligence was done.


Oh FFS don't take it so personally. They fucked up, get over it.

They're lucky they had enough leverage to force them into a settlement.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> 
> All the time. I bet you they *were* duly representing the parent company and all due diligence was done.
> 
> 
> Oh FFS don't take it so personally. They fucked up, get over it.


That's what I said initially until had to keep making up scenarios. It happens, Apple fucks up once in a while, but not really ever twice.

Just like they *really* fucked up with the iPad "4G" designation, for example, or their European AppleCare situation.

----------


## harrybarracuda

And they fucked up telling Australians that the new iPad would work on their 4G.

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

> And they fucked up telling Australians that the new iPad would work on their 4G.



Do you somehow get a kick out of repeating everything I say, and claiming it was your idea?





> Just like they *really* fucked up with the iPad "4G" designation

----------


## harrybarracuda

They didn't fuck up.

They deliberately mislead consumers.

There is a vast difference.

----------


## Cthulhu

You're such a retarded asstard - your obsession and continued hatred are just really consuming you.

They didn't. 

oh, never mind.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Yes they fucking did, and the judge told them so when he fined them.

Stop being such a pathetic apologist, anyone who indulges in shameful behaviour like this deserves the criticism they get.

----------


## Little Chuchok

> And they fucked up telling Australians that the new iPad would work on their 4G.


And in NZ,but it is still a superior product than any android pad.fact.

When android gets better, I will change.Hopefully it's not to far away.

----------


## Cthulhu

> And in NZ,but it is still a superior product than any android pad.fact.
> 
> When android gets better, I will change.Hopefully it's not to far away.


Not likely to happen anytime soon.

Ryan Kim, reporting for GigaOm:




> Monetate, which analyzes more than 100 million online shopping experiences, said that in the first quarter of 2012, tablet traffic to commerce sites hit 6.52 percent, overtaking smartphones (5.35 percent) for the first time. In the last year, tablets traffic increased 348 percent while smartphones visits grew by 117 percent over the same period.


Which tablets, though?




> Almost all of the traffic (95 percent) was from the iPad, said Monetate.


It's amusing how biased reporting always refers to "tablets" in an effort to minimize the iPad impact, yet upon reading one always finds out there is no "tablet market", there is only an "iPad traffic" right now.... 

Probably exactly for the reasons you pointed out, chuchok!

----------


## harrybarracuda

Most people do their actually purchasing on their PC, most of this is just browsing traffic, and we all know appletards like looking at pretty or shiny things, don't we?

Hardly a surprise, is it? Did you see the report that one of the travel sites says Apple users spend 30% more than non-Apple users, so they deliberately put the more expensive deals at the top?

Suckers from the day they were born.


 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

Getting harder to spin, isn't it?

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Getting harder to spin, isn't it?


Not for me, are you having difficulty?

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> 
> Getting harder to spin, isn't it?
> 
> 
> Not for me, are you having difficulty?


Just the confirmation I needed.

----------


## Cthulhu

Better bone up on your TEFL, Harry - you'll need it after your tablet fiasco:

Gates: Jobs 'phenomenal,' Surface tablet will disrupt Apple | Electronista

Two incompatible versions. 

No 3G

No support for rotation. 

It keeps going. This will be fun.

----------


## harrybarracuda

You'll be able to use 3G via one of the full USB ports with support for any future 3G/4G dongle. So you don't need to replace it or wait for a new version like in Australia for example.  :mid: 


Consumer version and Corporate version. Both will run Office and Windows apps, so incompatible with what...... ipad? Good. Those 3-year-olds will be chuffed to bits.

Rotate for what?

This is a Tablet Personal Computer, not a consumer tablet like the ipad.

You really must try harder, it isn't even out yet and you're bleating about it.

 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

I'm surprised you don't admire it, it is pretty, and I thought Appletards like pretty things? I wonder if they do them in British Racing Green?

----------


## harrybarracuda

So now Apple see all those sales going elsewhere, they're going to copy the 7" form factor as I predicted (this before the 4.x inch iPhone comes out).

Innovation my arse.




> *iPad mini Mass Production starts September says WSJ*
> 
> *The Wall Street Journal hits back at Bloomberg with their own  iPad mini rumor. Earlier we reported that Bloomberg reported that an  iPad mini comes by year-end to compete with Google and Amazon.*
> 
>            Jul 4 2012, 9:25am CDT | by Luigi Lugmayr 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

And the litigious wankers thrown out of court again.

Inovation my arse.




> *Apple loses critical “Slide to Unlock” patent claim against HTC in the UK courts*
> 
>   The  high court has chucked out all of Apple’s patent claims against HTC in  the UK, refusing to accept that three out of the four Apple patents put  forward in the case were even valid at all, and finding that the fourth  patent, which was valid, wasn’t infringed by HTC. So it’s all clear for  HTC’s Android plans in the UK.
>  The judge ruled that Apple’s key “Slide to Unlock” feature was too  “obvious” a system to be allowed to stand as a claim. Here’s HTC on the  latest turn in this tedious global legal battle: “Today, the English High Court found that three of four patents  claimed by Apple to be infringed by HTC were invalid, and that HTC did  not infringe the fourth. One of the invalidated patents is Apple’s  flagship ‘slide to unlock’ patent. Apple’s photo management patent was  found not to be infringed.
>  “HTC is pleased with the ruling, which provides further confirmation that Apple’s claims against HTC are without merit. “We remain disappointed that Apple continues to favour competition in the courtroom over competition in the marketplace.”The case also included the multi-touch system, which Android makers  seemed terrified to implement in the early days of Google’s OS, with  judge Mr Justice Floyd finding, again, that HTC’s use of the system was  absolutely fine.
>  So it’s ALL SYSTEMS GO for HTC and Android, apart from in Germany.  And the Netherlands. And the US. Apart from that, though, ALL SYSTEMS  ARE GO.
>  Link via the Telegraph.


Seriously, do the cunts want to patent the rectangle next?

----------


## harrybarracuda

Apple don't miss a chance to stiff their poor, gullible and unsuspecting customers, do they? I expect you'll want to call this another "mistake" will you?

 :rofl: 




> Italy Wants To Shut Down Apple Stores For 30 days
> July 3, 2012
> 
> Michael Harper for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online
> 
> If you buy any Apple product in America, you are instantly given a one-year warranty on the device. So, if for some reason your iPad starts to malfunction or go on the blink within that first year, you can take it back and have it replaced, easy as pie.
> 
> However, if you want a little extra coverage, or if you want someone to call for tech support when Google Chrome starts crashing your MacBook Air, you can purchase AppleCare, an additional 2 year warranty which protects you from all sorts of damages and malfunctions for a total of three years.
> 
> ...

----------


## Cthulhu

Kinda panicking there, aren't you, power posting as you are. It's amazing how much like Butterfly you are. In fact, the similarities in nearly all aspects of your personalities are uncanny.

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ Yes I thought you'd try and change the subject again. Feeble effort.

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Cthulhu

Sure, Buttercuda.

----------


## Cthulhu

> And they got an injunction banning the Nexus. Are they still selling those in the US?


They sure do - it's the brand new one they announced. You're thinking mistakenly of the Nexus One, which has long been out of circulation and not made by Samsung. 

Discover Nexus Devices

Nice try to spin it, though, but as usual, you're wrong. 

Galaxy Nexus pulled from Google Play Store [U] | Electronista

Galaxy Nexus pulled from Google Play Store [U]

Google has withdrawn the Samsung Galaxy Nexus from sale on the Google Play store as it moves to comply with US court orders banning it from sale. U.S. Judge Lucy Koh earlier rejected Samsung’s appeal against the injunction order, leading to the Galaxy Nexus being withdrawn from sale. Google currently has the device listed as ‘Coming Soon,’ with potential buyers offered the opportunity to sign up for notifications.

The Galaxy Nexus is perhaps the most prominent casualty in the legal war that has erupted between Apple and Samsung. Although the device was released last November as the flagship reference device for Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), it is slated to be the first smartphone to be upgraded to Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean). With the sales ban in place, the only device that will carry Jelly Bean for the time being be Google’s Asus-made Nexus 7 reference tablet.

Google and Samsung have scrambled to address the apparent IP infringement by hastily releasing putting together a revised build of the OS that includes a patch for the Apple ‘universal search’ patent. Whether it will be enough to satisfy the court and life the sales ban remains to be seen.

Google and Samsung are also expected to file for a re-evaluation of the Apple patent with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Although it is not know specifically what the company’s are expected to argue, it is typically the case that the two companies will be seeking to have Apple’s patent invalidated because of prior art, or other technology that may pre-date Apple’s initial patent filing.

The injunction against the Galaxy Nexus was issued ahead of Apple’s formal court case against Samsung for its alleged infringement of Apple’s IP in both software and hardware design.Judge Koh ruled that Apple has ‘articulated "articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm" from "long-term loss of market share" and "losses of downstream sales." The case is scheduled to start this month.

Update: Google has updated its store to show that the Galaxy Nexus will return soon, but updated with Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean). The company has not clarified whether its disappearance from the store has anything to do with the current injunction affecting the sale of the device in the US. Whether it believes that its updated software does not violate the offending patent on 'universal search' paving the way for its continued sale is also unclear at this time.

----------


## Butterfly

> It's amazing how much like Butterfly you are. In fact, the similarities in nearly all aspects of your personalities are uncanny.


actually Quack Quack, he is more of a "religious" follower like you to be honest  :Smile: 

his devotion to Samsung and Android has only you as a competitor  :Smile: 

I just like to make fun of you two  :Razz:

----------


## Butterfly

> I'm surprised you don't admire it, it is pretty, and I thought Appletards like pretty things?


now that's quite nice, can it run Android ?  :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

> So now Apple see all those sales going elsewhere


Elsewhere? Really? Where? Seeing as how they own 95% of the tablet market, I'd be curious how you spin that one.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> It's amazing how much like Butterfly you are. In fact, the similarities in nearly all aspects of your personalities are uncanny.
> 
> 
> actually Quack Quack, he is more of a "religious" follower like you to be honest 
> 
> his devotion to Samsung and Android has only you as a competitor


He's not so much devoted to Samsung or Android (he doesn't even have either of those), as he is devoted to hating all things Apple - which is why he spends hours each day pouring over Apple blogs, news and forums.... He's kinda fun, the way he is obsessed. Comes with old age, I presume...






> I just like to make fun of you two


Oh, I know, and I enjoy it - hence, why you're not on my ignore list. Its amusing to occasionally glance over your repetitive comments.

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
> 
> 
> And they got an injunction banning the Nexus. Are they still selling those in the US?
> 
> 
> They sure do - it's the brand new one they announced. You're thinking mistakenly of the Nexus One, which has long been out of circulation and not made by Samsung.



I stand corrected.


It's a Google Search tool on the Nexus S.




> Google just might help Samsung overturn a ban on its Galaxy Nexus  phone, after a  US judge rejected a request by Samsung to lift a  pre-trial injunction against sales of the device.
>  On Friday, US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, also  granted Apple’s request to block sales of the smartphone, the Galaxy  Nexus. Samsung had asked the court to stay the injunction pending  resolution of an appeal. Apple had objected to the Galaxy Nexus, saying  that it infringed on four of its patents.
>  According to Apple, the Nexus’ “Quick Search Box” which is able to  search multiple sources through a single interface is like Apple’s Siri.  Apple insists that this is patent infringement. The other three areas  where Apple has accused Samsung of patent infringement are actionable  linking, slide-to-unlock, and touch screen word suggestion.
>  Now it seems that Google will help Samsung fight the ban. According to _TheNextWeb_ Google  has revealed that is ready to roll out a software update that it hopes  will overcome a possible US sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus.
>  According to the report, _Once the patch is rolled out, devices  that are updated will see the homescreen-based quick search option  simplified so as to only show results from the Web, with local search  options disabled entirely on the device. The voice search option will  also be restricted to retrieving results from the Web. _ 
>  The restricted search option could thus ensure that Samsung could get  the injunction reversed if the smartphone no longer uses the unified  search platform, which seems to be the major cause for contention.
> The Samsung Galaxy Nexus. AFP
> 
>  Meanwhile it seems that Google has ceased sale of the phone from Google Play in the US, reports _the Verge_. The Verge also states, _the  description of the phone now reads “Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ (soon with  Android 4.1, Jelly Bean),” which suggests that maybe the company merely  stopped selling devices without the new update._
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

> he is devoted to hating all things Apple - which is why he spends hours each day pouring over Apple blogs, news and forums....


The best bit is.... I get paid for it.

 :rofl:

----------


## harrybarracuda

95% of that tablet shopping traffic now becomes 95% of the tablet market?

Don't you mean "browsing shopping sites" market?

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

> With Jelly Bean, the Nexus will get Google Now, which is similar to Apples Siri.


Oh, look, another lovely piece of Andy Rubin copying of an Apple introduced feature.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Oh yes, I forgot Apple *innovated* when they introduced Siri.




> *CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (August 21, 2007)* – Vlingo Corporation  launched today with a limited beta version of its voice-powered  interface for mobile phones made possible by breakthrough speech  recognition technology developed by the company. Freeing users  from tedious triple-tapping to text, search or download mobile content  from their phones, vlingo gives consumers control over the mobile  Internet with the power of their voices. Users do not need to change how  they speak or memorize a list of commands. They can say what they want,  how they want, and vlingo delivers the results – word for word. For  carriers and mobile application providers, vlingo unlocks the pent up  demand for mobile data services across all applications, delivering  unrealized revenue opportunities. See a demo  at www.vlingomobile.com/demo.


 :rofl:

----------


## Cthulhu

> Oh yes, I forgot Apple *innovated* when they introduced Siri.


Yes, they did.

----------


## Cthulhu

> 95% of that tablet shopping traffic now becomes 95% of the tablet market?
> 
> Don't you mean "browsing shopping sites" market?


Oh... that, and the "using WiFi hotspots" market, and the "using in-flight wifi" market, oh, and the "tablet platforms using Twitter" market, and the "tablet platforms using Facebook" market.... Though, most of those score in the 97% to 98% usage figures.

Keep trying. I expect you will just post another 4-5 unrelated articles boasting shipping numbers of tablets that don't sell, like that Asus Transformer that you jizzed over so much...

----------


## Cthulhu

> So now Apple see all those sales going elsewhere, they're going to copy the 7" form factor as I predicted (this before the 4.x inch iPhone comes out).


Bummer that you take rumors as gospel - I can tell you that much, there won't be any 7" iPads this year, or next. Why should there be, Apple can barely make enough iPads as it is.

Marco Arment:




> If Apple were to launch a $200300 7.8-inch iPad, theyd probably sell a ton of them for the holiday season  which means theyd need to start ramping up production pretty soon, if not already. If they were doing that, wed probably see legitimate-looking parts leaked from the supply chain by now, but as far as I know, we havent.


Whoops!

.... but by all means, keep quoting "people in the know"

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Keep trying. I expect you will just post another 4-5 unrelated articles boasting shipping numbers of tablets that don't sell, like that Asus Transformer that you jizzed over so much...


You like to try and fabricate numbers, don't you?




> Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
> 
> 
> So now Apple see all those sales going elsewhere
> 
> 
> Elsewhere? Really? Where? Seeing as how they own 95% of the tablet market, I'd be curious how you spin that one.


Don't really have to spin, do we? Just telling the truth will do. But we all know that Apple lie - to Italians and Australians to name the most recent - 
it's followers will lie as well, won't they?

So your 95% is actually around 62%, that gain being ipad3 sales I would guess.




> Apple iPad to gain market share in 2012 at expense of Android
>                                                                               By Mikey Campbell
> Published: 07:14 PM EST (04:14 PM PST) 
>  
> 
>  *Market research firm IDC on Thursday  released an updated worldwide tablet sales forecast and expects Apple to  gain more ground over Android devices in 2012 amid an overall surge for  the sector.*
> 
> According to the latest IDC Worldwide Quarterly Media Tablet and eReader  Tracker Apple's iPad will get back some of the market share it lost to  Android tablets in 2011 and is forecast to take over *62 percent of  worldwide sales*. 
> 
> ...


95%.   62%.    Bit of a difference isn't it?

 ::chitown::

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
> 
> 
> So now Apple see all those sales going elsewhere, they're going to copy the 7" form factor as I predicted (this before the 4.x inch iPhone comes out).
> 
> 
> Bummer that you take rumors as gospel - I can tell you that much, there won't be any 7" iPads this year, or next. Why should there be, Apple can barely make enough iPads as it is.
> 
> Marco Arment:
> ...


Oh I forgot, the Apple CEO has your ear.

 :rofl: 


Post noted: #184.

----------


## Cthulhu

> 95%.   62%.    Bit of a difference isn't it?


You looooooove those shipping numbers, don't you? It's the only numbers you can hope to keep you from looking a total fool. Of course, they are also mostly misleading, as we have discussed before.

... but anything's fair to you in the name of dishonesty, isn't it?

----------


## harrybarracuda

And you have no response but bluster again.

Marvellous.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Cthulhu

Oh, look:

Most popular Cameraphones on Flikr:

Flickr: Camera Finder



Top 4 : iOS
Samsung Galaxy : trailing WAY behind.


Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks




> If you're in an airport and using the public Wi-Fi, chances are you are reading this post on your smartphone or tablet. *And for 83 percent of you, this mobile device is either an iPhone, iPad or iPod touch.*



Apple is winning the mobile platform wars

Apple is winning the mobile platform wars




> The numbers add up where they matter most, as they have trended for well over a year. *At the end of 2011, Apple had 315 million cumulative iOS device sales.* The 55 million iPads sold to date account for 17 percent of the total and iPhone, with 175 million sold, 56 percent.
> 
> But 2011 was the break-out year for iOS devices -- 156 million, according to Asymco's calculations. So Apple sold 49.5 percent of all iOS devices in a single year, which indicates considerable accelerated momentum.
> 
> According to company financial filings, for calendar 2011, Apple sold 92.95 million iPhones and 40.45 million iPads -- generating $61 billion and $24.95 billion revenue, respectively. For all calendar 2011, all Apple generated $127.84 billion revenue. The two products accounted for 67 percent of the company's sales for the year (again referring to calendar and not Apple's fiscal year).
> 
> If my flu-socked brain matter calculates right, Apple generated around $656 per iPhone and $616 per iPad during calendar 2011.
> 
> Update: But profits are more revealing. After I posted, on February 26, Asymco released a cost breakdown for iPhone that works out to $330 profit per handset.
> ...


These are actually SALES number - which, oddly, Google doesn't reveal.

----------


## Cthulhu

Apple is winning the mobile platform wars




> But money isn't everything. Typically, successful platforms share six common traits:
> 
> 1. There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
> 2. There is at least one killer application people really want
> 3. There is breadth of useful applications
> 4. Third parties make lots of money
> 5. The platform is broadly available
> 6. There is a robust ecosystem


I'm adding this mostly for comparison with your new Failure Darling, Microsoft Surface.

In the case of the platform that you are about to bet your career on:

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No

At least half of those hold true for Android. Enjoy early retirement.

----------


## harrybarracuda

So Windows isn't a successful platform?

Fucking hell, I'm so glad we have you to give us industry advice.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> Oh, look:
> 
> Most popular Cameraphones on Flikr:
> 
> Flickr: Camera Finder
> 
> 
> 
> Top 4 : iOS
> ...


I've left this post as is, because it reveals one of the Appletards' favourite tricks. (Note the plural, you are one of many that try and use this feeble attempt at distorting the picture).

We are talking about *Tablets*, and all of a sudden you bring *iphones and ipod touches* into the equation as if they are somehow relevant.

Which they are not, unless the conversation was as vague as "mobile devices".

We already know Apple make lots of money, and we now how they do it (overcharging).

The only thing we don't get is why their customers (and as recent news has shown, employees) enjoy letting themselves get shafted.

 :Smile:

----------


## harrybarracuda

> These are actually SALES number - which, oddly, Google doesn't reveal.


Maybe something to do with the fact that most Android products sold are manufactured by third parties.

The best Google can do is report:




> Almost a million Android devices are activated every 24 hours, according to Googles Andy Rubin.
>    The companys senior VP of mobile stuff revealed the  statistics through Twitter where, after insisting he had no plans to  leave Google, claimed there are over 900,000 Android devices activated  each day.


And that's easy to measure because they are activated through the Google store.

Of course that doesn't include Kindle Fires or other devices that don't use the Google Store.

----------


## Cthulhu

> So Windows isn't a successful platform?


The Big Mac is the most successful burger.

The Bible is the most successful book.

----------


## harrybarracuda

And your point is?

----------


## Cthulhu

Ah, right - I forgot you have trouble with metaphors.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Considering you were the one that brought it up, it would be nice to think you understand what it's supposed to mean.

 :mid:

----------


## Butterfly

he means people like shit,

in some ways he is right,

could explain the popularity of apple gadgets like the iPhone and iPad

----------


## Butterfly

> Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
> 
> 
> So Windows isn't a successful platform?
> 
> 
> The Big Mac is the most successful burger.
> 
> The Bible is the most successful book.


and apple is the most successful company,

we got your point Quack Quack, well said

----------


## hazz

I once had some dealing with macdonalds many years ago. I learnt that:

a the time they had an entire class A network and their entire IT infustrcture was routed onto the internet with no NAT.

They were predominantly a property company that just happened to sell burgers

----------


## harrybarracuda

Ah well that didn't last long - I'm guessing most people that would have gone for them have probably bought the SIII instead.




> *Samsung Galaxy Nexus back on sale in US thanks to Google Android workarounds*
> 
>                                                                                    by James Laird,                                               09 July, 2012             
> 
>  
> 
> The ongoing patent war between Apple and Samsung  continues to generate new drama, with the United States Court of Appeals  for the Federal Circuit now lifting the sales ban recently imposed on  the Galaxy Nexus smartphone. 
>  On 30 June, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh embargoed the Galaxy Nexus smartphone by issuing a rare pre-trial injunction and preventing the device from being distributed Stateside.
>  Making that ruling, Judge Koh ventured that the Samsung mobile  infringed on four patents held by Apple, and that the Cupertino-based  tech giant stood to lose substantial market share in the absence of a  preliminary retail prohibition.
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

Strike another blow for the good guys.




> *Samsung Galaxy Tab doesn't copy Apple designs, UK court rules*
> 
>  It's  a win for Samsung Electronics, which hasn't fared so well in the legal  arena lately. The decision affects three Galaxy Tab models.
>     by Roger Cheng 
>     July 9, 2012 4:52 AM PDT    
> 
>  The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
>  (Credit: Josh Miller/CNET) 
>   Score one for Samsung Electronics. 
> ...

----------


## Cthulhu

It's funny you "forgot" to include the actual statement by the judge, regarding his ruling:




> The design for three Galaxy tablets doesn’t infringe Apple’s registered design, Judge Colin Birss said today in London in a court fight between the world’s two biggest makers of smartphones. Consumers aren’t likely to get the tablet computers mixed up, he said.


Oh, and in closing:




> The Galaxy tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Birss said. “They are not as cool.”


Wow, even the law agrees.

British Judge: Samsung Tab Design 'Not As Cool' As iPad - Hardware - Handhelds/PDAs - Informationweek

Samsung Galaxy Tab 'Not As Cool' As Apple's iPad, Judge Rules

----------


## harrybarracuda

Why would I mention that that judge thinks Ipads are prettier?

Who gives a fuck?

 :mid:

----------


## Cthulhu

> The Galaxy tablets do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design, Birss said. They are not as cool.


Just because it's worth repeating. Apple should just use that in their advertising.

Oh, I know why you didn't use that quote - you saw it, and carefully removed it from what you quoted. Priceless to see you on the ropes as such.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Why would they need to use it in their advertising? That's the only reason people buy them anyway.

"That's extremely expensive for a tablet with limited functionality".

"Yes, but it's COOL!  *Blink* *Blink*".

 :bananaman:

----------


## Cthulhu

> "That's extremely expensive for a tablet with limited functionality".


There you go, with your misrepresentations and lies again.

iPads are less expensive, on average,  than their "competitor" tablets - better build quality, too.

Of course, you prefer not to talk about that.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Stupid assumption really.

According to CNET:




> Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 review (Verizon 4G - 16GB - Gray)
> *$529.00*





> Apple iPad 3 review (March 2012, 16GB, Verizon 4G LTE, black)
> *$619.00*


Do go on....




> iPads are less expensive, on average,  than their "competitor" tablets


Never mind, that extra 17% is all "coolness", right?

 :Smile:

----------


## Cthulhu

You just keep massaging those numbers, don't you?

Oh, and by your numbers, Apple still owns the entire tablet market, with Samsung sharing the lower 7 percent with every other tablet maker.

Oh, yeah - winning!

----------


## harrybarracuda

> You just keep massaging those numbers, don't you?
> 
> Oh, and by your numbers, Apple still owns the entire tablet market, with Samsung sharing the lower 7 percent with every other tablet maker.
> 
> Oh, yeah - winning!


I told *exactly* you where I got the figures from - *CNET*.

I didn't actually massage anything, in fact I went to great lengths to make sure that both were:

~10"
4G
16G
with Verizon

So prove me wrong or stop bullshitting, eh?

 ::chitown::

----------


## Butterfly

of course, it's cool

that's the angle of marketing that apple is using to make boringly normal and mediocre people feel like they are special

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ In England we used to call that "Care in the Community".

 :Smile:

----------


## Butterfly

and Jesus gave bread to the mass so they could stop starving from negligence,

1000 years from now, they will teach the scriptures of Jobs in school, with the iPod being the new bible

----------


## PlanK

Steve didn't rise from the dead, and his prophecy of burying Android is yet to pass.


Put him on the try-hard list.

----------


## Cthulhu

Oh, it will.

----------


## PlanK

My God!!!

You're right, Android is dying!





> A new, inexpensive game console built on the Android ecosystem has  been  funded by gamers clamouring for a change in the games industry.   
>           The console, called Ouya, aims to get developers working on projects  for  the TV again, rather than smartphones and tablets, and intends to  offer  exclusively 'free-to-play' games.   
>           What that means is the there will at least be free demos of games,  and  many will employ a free-to-play model funded by completely optional   microtransactions.   
>           The creators of Ouya were asking for $950,000 to fund the project on   crowd-funding website Kickstarter. At the time of writing, the project   had raised $1,045,170 in twelve hours

----------


## harrybarracuda

^ They got the two mill easily, now they're asking what people want.

----------


## PlanK

But people won't know what they want until Steve tells them what they want!

???

----------


## Cthulhu

> My God!!!
> 
> You're right, Android is dying!


I don't see them "winning" - not as long as Andy Rubin remains in charge. The guy's a clueless moron. $12 billion for Motorola. In cash. For ... nothing??

----------


## PlanK

> $12 billion for Motorola. In cash. For ... nothing??



For a patent portfolio to counter Apple's stupid bullying campaign.  It's not the most intelligent thing to do.  Buying a company just to compete with another company playing silly buggers is just like arguing with MacTards on the internet.  Pretty much pointless.  You can't argue with religious insanity.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Give them a chance. They may well actually use Motorola to make the next Nexus/Galaxy once they've completed the reorganisation.

----------


## PlanK

They'll have to tread carefully.  If they use Motorolla to launch their flagship Android products Samsung, HTC, etc will call foul.  Then Google will become just another propriety, corporate fanboy company like Apple.

----------


## Cthulhu

> Originally Posted by Cthulhu
> 
> $12 billion for Motorola. In cash. For ... nothing??
> 
> 
> 
> For a patent portfolio to counter Apple's stupid bullying campaign.  It's not the most intelligent thing to do.  Buying a company just to compete with another company playing silly buggers is just like arguing with MacTards on the internet.  Pretty much pointless.  You can't argue with religious insanity.


Despite Motorola's patent portfolio being universally regarded as useless, for that purpose? Contains a ton of patents unrelated to mobility. Kudos to the Moto guys for putting the fear of God into Rubin and pressing him to green light the purchase and making out like bandits, but as a GOOG shareholder I'd call to replace Rubin.

----------


## Cthulhu

> They'll have to tread carefully.  If they use Motorolla to launch their flagship Android products Samsung, HTC, etc will call foul.  Then Google will become just another propriety, corporate fanboy company like Apple.


... so, they can't use Moto to create hardware either, then? Brilliant. 

Not that it matters, seeing as how Moto consistently builds the worst devices, in the current mobility space. The days of RAZR are long gone.

----------


## Cujo

> But people won't know what they want until Steve tells them what they want!
> 
> ???


That's itards, not people as such.

----------


## harrybarracuda

Again, Apple seems to have lost its focus with all this lawsuit nonsense.




> *Apple Scrambles to Patch App Store Hack*
> 
> *A Russian hacker exploits an iOS flaw to trick Apple's App Store into giving free in-app purchases.*
> 
>  		 		 		 			 				By Lex Friedman, Macworld 			 			   Jul 14, 2012 3:28 am 		
>  	 	  	 		 		 			 			 			  		 			   		  		   A hack that lets iOS users trick the App Store into giving them in-app  purchases for free has gone public, potentially costing app makers  revenue and causing Apple a major headache. 
>   The exploit was first posted Wednesday, but came into prominence early  Friday, after it was publicized by several websites. (In fact, the hack  has proven so popular that the server allowing it is down as of this  writing due to overwhelming demand.) 
>   Alexey V. Borodin of Russia built the in-app purchase hack, which  requires several steps—including installing bogus certificates on your  device, and using a specially-crafted DNS server. Those ingredients  combine to fool apps into believing that they’re communicating with the  App Store, when they’re actually going to a Web server that pretends to  be the App Store instead. Borodin told _Macworld_ that his  exploit works in part by faking—or “spoofing”—the code receipts that  Apple issues for in-app purchases which developers use for validation,  with the iOS device configured to mistakenly believe that those receipts  are coming directly from Apple. 
>   Speaking to _Macworld_ over instant message, Borodin claimed that  because “every in-app receipt is generic” and contains no direct user  data, those receipts were “easy to spoof.” 
> ...

----------


## harrybarracuda

*Apple must publicly admit Samsung did not copy iPad*

 
 				by  					Mike Shaw 



 *Notices will appear on Apple's UK website and in British newspapers.* 




Apple has been ordered to publish a notice on its UK  website and in British newspapers publicly acknowledging that Samsung  didn't copy the iPad.
 Following a ruling on July 9 that Samsung's Galaxy tablets  do not infringe Apple's registered designs, Judge Colin Birrs has said  that a message clearly stating as much should be posted on Apple's UK  homepage for six months, as well as published in several print  publications.


 A report by Bloomberg  says that comments made by Apple implying that Samsung had copied  designs caused "real commercial harm" to the South Korean firm.
 According to Bloomberg, as well as effectively advertising a bitter rival on their homepage, Apple must also pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3.
 Apple lost a case against Samsung in the UK earlier this month, when judge Colin Birrs ruled that Samsung's Galaxy tablets weren't cool enough to be confused with the iPad.

----------


## Cthulhu

.... and there you you again - you get your ass handed to you in one thread, and you immediately beat a hasty agree, spewing "revenge" and then going to town on every other Apple thread, cutting and pasting further non-issues.

Yeah, buddy, that's sure showing 'them'. 

Seriously, is this what happens when tech guys get old and are left behind...?

----------


## baldrick

> Apple must publicly admit Samsung did not copy iPad


that is pretty fcukin funny
I think they should also have to publish that kubrick did not copy the ipad in 2001




> Seriously, is this what happens when tech guys get old and are left behind...?


you should be publishing your comments to your cool friends via the latest tech - you being on the bleeding edge and all - fcukwit

----------


## harrybarracuda

> .... and there you you again - you get your ass handed to you in one thread, and you immediately beat a hasty agree, spewing "revenge" and then going to town on every other Apple thread, cutting and pasting further non-issues.
> 
> Yeah, buddy, that's sure showing 'them'. 
> 
> Seriously, is this what happens when tech guys get old and are left behind...?


Oh stop pouting, you little brat.

At least they'll be able to say "But the judge said we were much cooler!" in every advert.

 :smiley laughing:

----------


## Butterfly

> Apple must publicly admit Samsung did not copy iPad


apple little bicthes oWned again  :rofl:

----------


## harrybarracuda



----------


## harrybarracuda

They're still at it.




> *(Ars Technica)* -- Samsung has taken another hit from Apple in Europe, thanks to an appeals court in Germany.
>  The court ruled  on Tuesday morning that the Galaxy Tab 7.7 indeed infringes upon  Apple's design patent for the iPad, and banned it from sale across the  EU.
>  The Galaxy Tab 10.1N, however, managed to make its way through the cracks, with the court allowing it to be sold in Germany.
>  The Galaxy Tab 7.7 had  already been banned from sale in Germany thanks to a decision from a  lower court in late 2011. At that time, the court treated Samsung  Germany as a separate entity from Samsung in Korea; the latter was able  to continue selling the tablet throughout the rest of Europe.
> The Number: Samsung the new Apple? 
>  This was reversed on  Tuesday when the Duesseldorf High Court decided that Samsung Germany was  instead a local branch of the Korean company, resulting in the EU-wide  ban. According to a statement released by the court, the Galaxy Tab 7.7  infringes upon Apple's registered EU Community Design for the iPad.
>  But Samsung didn't lose  entirely. The appeals court also upheld a previous ruling that the  Galaxy Tab 10.1N — the larger of Samsung's two tablets — had indeed been  sufficiently changed from the original Tab 10.1 design, therefore  differentiating it enough from the iPad.
>  The original Tab 10.1 had been banned in Germany last year  for looking too much like Apple's iPad Community Design; Samsung  eventually changed the look of the front and slapped an "N" on the  device's name, qualifying it for sale in Germany.
>  Samsung vowed to continue fighting Apple, despite its win with the Tab 10.1N.
>  "Samsung is disappointed  with the court's ruling. We will continue to take all available  measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property  rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain  available to consumers throughout the European Union," the company said  in a statement.

----------


## nostromo

> that is pretty fcukin funny
> I think they should also have to publish that kubrick did not copy the ipad in 2001


As this goes on, 2001 in Apple style, I might as well sue you for 78 million baht for copying content of my posts. You will, of course, be subpoenaed to California on your own expense - then off to Guantanamo but that you don't need to pay for. 

Me? I like John Lennon.

----------

