Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 3 May, 16.59
OSAMA BIN LADEN did not use one of his wives as a human shield in an apparent attempt to try to save his own life during a raid by US covert forces – despite what a top US officia said last night.
“There was family at that compound, and there was a female who was, in fact, in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield bin Laden from the incoming fire,” counter-terrorism official John Brennan said last night.
Pressed on reports the woman shot dead by Navy SEALs during a firefight at a compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan was one of bin Laden’s four wives, Brennan told a White House briefing: “That’s my understanding.”
Brennan said it was not entirely clear “whether or not bin Laden or the son or whatever put her there or she put herself there” or whether the Al-Qaeda chief himself fired rounds during the exchange.
“From a visual perspective, here is bin Laden who has been calling for attacks, living in this million dollar plus compound, living in an area that’s far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield,” he said.
“I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years, and so again looking at what bin Laden was doing, hiding there while he’s putting other people out there to carry out attacks, again, just speaks to, I think, the nature of the individual he was.”
However, the US has done a bit of a U-turn since that press briefing and has not repeated its claim that bin Laden used one of his four wives as a human shield. The Guardian notes that the wife who was at the compound did not in fact die, although another woman did.
The name of the son of bin Laden’s who was killed has also been updated – it is not Hamza, but Khalid who is now reported to have been killed.
The White House cited “confusion” over the exact events, which were viewed by Brennan on live feed, during the raid on bin Laden’s Pakistan compound. The US website Politico was told by an unnamed White House official that bin Laden was not armed when he was killed and so could not have been “firing behind her” (a woman). The official added:
Two women were shot here. It sounds like their fates were mixed up.
Bin Laden’s wife received a gunshot wound only to her calf but did not die.
- additional reporting from the AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Great, so a California court (consisting of non-expert jury) rules in favor of a Califonia company over a Korean company. Pantent law is becoming protectionism in another name. Terrible judgement for consumers.
Fintan, I couldnt agree more. This would be like the Ford company trying to sue all the other car makers
2 brothers fighting over a cookie…grow up
And the jurors decided on the compensation as well, which seems unusual.
“Look! Samsung phones are designed to be held in the hand too – they copied Apple! Let’s fine them $1,000,000,000. That’ll learn ‘em”.
It’s a disgrace, blatant protectionism.
Seems like the South Korean court did much the same though….
A multi billion dollar cookie
A Korean court has also just ruled that Samsung breached Apples patents. They also ruled that Apple breached some of Samsung patents and have stopped sales of both.
Rubbish, its a fair result. maybe the smartphone market may get a bit more interesting now, as other phone makers will have actually use their imagination. If their is any protectionism going on here, it’s the protection of innovation and creativity.
Donncha make that comment on your iPhone did you?
A ‘non-expert jury’ is the foundation of that (and our) legal system. Murder cases aren’t decided by a crack team of CSI ops, so why should this be any different? A jury is a jury is a jury.
I did Francis, I also followed the case, and I think the decision was a fair one, and will force other smartphone companies to innovate, instead of lazily following the iPhone design… Do you think I’m biased because I use an iPhone? Does that mean you’re biased if you don’t?
http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/something-about-apple-case-is-fishy/
The outcome of the case was fixed from the start!
Lad seriuosly, this has nothing to do with android really, its about Samsung copying androids “style”. The look not really the funcionality. Basically samsung was kirfing apple, thats the issue, this has no real relevance for other more inventive phone makers like, htc, sony etc. Who have had their won inventive look and software all along.
Sorry samsung copying Apples style of course.
Apple created the iPhone, Samsung (as confirmed in their own words on documents) copied the very base of the iPhone. If this was the iRishPhone and Britain had done the same we would be up in arms. I think a very fair decision and hope less companies would try this in future.
Predictable outcome by an American Court…..
Samsung had it coming. Apple spend years on the iPhone, Samsung had an extremely similar device out three moths later “but we didn’t copy it we swear.” And don’t mind all the internal Samsung memos describing to their developers exactly how to improve the native apps by making them more like Apple’s (126 pages long that memo was, don’t ya know.)
What gets me is that this result somehow ‘stifles innovation.’ Taking a multi-touch screen phone with pinch to zoom, inertial scrolling, the phone features presented as apps and presented in a 3×4 grid on the screen, and then selling exactly the same thing in your own name – even the icons were the same in some cases! – is not innovating.
Samsung – one of many – ripped it all off, pure and simple. They’ve done better in recent times with the S3, but the only other UI innovator out there is Microsoft for their line of Windows phone.
I like Android, great that there’s competition. But it’s not original, or at least it certainly wasn’t in the beginning.
Couldn’t of said it better myself
This is a d**k move by Apple, as a tech user I’m very disappointed.
I use both Apple and android products every day (Mac, droid phone, iPad) so I am not in one camp or the other. My old sony ericsson phone had a 3×4 grid, it is not an apple innovation, it’s been around for years. Most android interfaces are not 3×4 grids anyway.
Pinch to zoom dates back to a PhD thesis published in 1983 by Wayne Westerman. Multitouch back to 1982. It had numerous incarnations since. It was not developed in 2005 for the iPhone.
Motorola developed WCDMA, GPRS, 802.11, antenna design, wireless email, proximity sensing, software application management, location-based services and multi-device synchronization. If those patents were recognized then all smartphones would be dead in the water.
Marketing is what made the iPhone popular. All the tech was there. Apple just packaged it up all nice for the ipod generation. Since its first incarnation it has been ‘borrowing’ all its best new features from android anyway. Android is open source it fosters innovation. Without Android in the picture the iPhone would not be what it is today. Think multitasking, notification bar etc.
Don’t forget almost all big ‘new’ iPhone software features are generally already available on Android in some form or another when they are released on the iPhone
Google have recently bought Motorola and they intend on following up on all Motorola’s telecoms patents. For a company like Google who generally are not litigious like Apple have turned out to be recently it looks like they are out to put an end to this patent nonsense by going all gung-ho on their tech al-a Apple.
If they are ruled in favour they essentially have tech in every telecoms device on the planet.
Real tech too, not just hand gestures. Without it every iPhone on the planet would still be an iPod.
Thank you Garret. I was just about to write a similar but less detailed response. I watched an interesting Tedtalk the other day which points out the ridiculousness of some of Apples recent software patents. About 5mins in- http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html
And what will they do with that $1bn? Probably build a new factory in China.
Would be horrible to give people without work some options, not like they are forced trough the doors, I am sure Samsung has the same practice.
I wish Samsung would have the guts to pull the plug on apple. What would their little iPhones and iPads be then. They would become worthless plastic blocks overnight. Apple would want to be careful; never bite the hand that feeds you.
Would love it to happen.
Apple are Samsung’s largest customer. Don’t see it happening. Also, you’d be hurting Samsung more than Apple to wish that. Doesn’t make a lot of sense tbh.
Why would they? The $1bn damages would be compounded by losing the revenue from the parts deal for iOS devices. The next iPhone is likely to be released within the next month, so presumably the parts are already in the pipeline. Plus they’d be reneging on a contract, giving Apple another opportunity to sue their asses. If they decided just walk away once the contract expires, they’re handing over a big chunk of business to their competitors.
Apple could always source the parts from another supplier, Samsung would not find a customer a big as Apple. Apple is their biggest customer
A sad day for technological innovation everywhere. Note that Apple have probably filed a BS patents for the words technological and innovation but not the words tyrant or bully.
Why is a sad day for innovation? Maybe Samsung might go and come up with their own ideas, rather than copying others, which is hardly innovative..
Of course we all know that Apple own the phone factor now…if you design a mobile phone stop! Apple own that
@eamon, no, if you are designing a mobile phone, come up with your own ideas and make a better one. Innovate
Great for Apple, should just about pay for its next order of Samsung parts!
It’s ok to pay for someone else’s technology… just not copy it and claim you invented it!
Apple ripped off Xerox and stole their ideas – now they are crying because someone else supposedly did same?
Idiots!
@Biggins31
No, they did not. Read this for a good account of what actually happened between Xerox and Apple http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
@ UnLaoised
I think you need to do a little bit more reading. Its not just ideas they copied/stole!
For example: http://www.succeed2k.com/technology/did-apple-steal-technology.html
O’ and by the way, jobs even admits stealing: http://betanews.com/2011/09/24/apple-patent-lawsuits-are-hypocritical/
@Biggins31
Those are opinion pieces. Joe Wilcox is a notorious anti-Apple troll. Gladwell’s article was a factual account. Jobs was never reticent about where his influences came from, and from which technologies his products were derived.
Samsung supply a lot of the internal components of the iPhone i wonder will they pull the plug on Apple now? I own an iPhone and an SII and its clear that they mirrored some designs like the icons, home screen but i dont think it warranted a court case. Like Apple need another billion dollars anyway.
Really?? the iPhone home screen is nothing like android home screens. To be honest I think you’re insulting Apple saying the icons are similar, Touchwiz is one of the ugliest launchers I’ve seen on android, no design, no consistency between widgets or even fonts.
Having said that, all the iPhone has is a list of apps.
Nonsense Rob. You make it sound like Apple did all the work and Samsung just copied them all. Its blatant protectionism. Big bully rules the schoolyard new boy comes along and whips him. Big bully don’t like it…Its nonsense utter nonsense.
That’s pretty much what the jury decided. It’s not protectionism, it’s fair. if you spent years and a fortune developing a product, and I came along at the very end and copied it for far less, i doubt if you’d see that as fair. Just because all the technology seems obvious and ubiquitous now, doesn’t mean Apple weren’t ripped off, no matter how huge they are.
Donncha, oh you mean how iOS5′s swipe down notifications are a blatant rip off of Android….
@Paddy, Apple has blatantly copied the notifications. Sure its even in the desktop now. And its a huge restructuring so much so its pretty easy to claim ios copies android in basic ui more than android copies ios.
@Les Rock, Samsung 100% blatantly copied apples style, and did an insane disservice to android by destroying its beauty.
@Donncha, Samsung did something awfully bad and ugly but Apple weren’t really ripped off that much without reciprocation in kind.
Maybe they are, and if apple had to pay up, I would have no problem with that. Or maybe there should be some agreement re. Sharing of patents. Anyway it’s up to patent owner to protect their patents
I can’t stand Apple, most overrated products ever!! They have more restrictions than the North Korean government!! Is there a particular reason why one Samsung were taken to court and not the likes of HTC who have a very similar operating system?
Similar in that they both run Android, but HTC’s implementation of it is different to Samsung’s. I’m sure if Apple felt HTC were ripping them off like Samsung were, they’d go after them too.
Protectionism is a good description. I’m a happy iPhone user but I don’t like how apple is behaving. They’ve just gotten a patent on “podcasting” too. Pirates, sailing about the tech world patenting whatever they find … or whatever term a UK journalist invents.
Great day for Apple why should they spend millions designing and developing new product only for other companies to copy ,Asian have for to long applied this principle and it destroys innovation.
“Good artists copy but great artists steal” Pablo Picasso
Firstly, that’s a comment is more than just a little bit racist.
Secondly, both the form factor and UI were not Apple innovations, they were merely refined by Apple. The iPhone was a nicer looking PDA and the iPad a nicer looking tablet, both of which had exsisted since the ’90s.
This is a sad day for consumers and developers alike.
A Korean Company and an American Company, Apple wouldn’t get a fair trial in Korea, Samsung wouldn’t get a fair trial in America, Surely a good deal would be to have the case in Europe!
I suspect it will.
There have been trials in Europe (The Netherlands and Germany, to be specific), Australia and South Korea.
Yeah you’re probably right, it’s not like Apple:
1. Worked on the basic core concepts of this kind of device, now ubiquitous, for years. And then those EXACT concepts are repeated across the board in other devices. Its not just costly for a business to do this, the opportunity cost is also terrific. This was a company that had never done and knew nothing about phones taking a big risk by spending years and millions in research and prototypes – could all have been for nothing.
2. Did all the ground work with the phone carriers to allow a new kind of relationship between carrier and manufacturer: one where the carrier (02, Vodaphone etc) doesn’t get to dictate what’s one the phone. That was a huge step for the industry, one which took years of negotiation and persuasion. The smartphone market as it is today wouldn’t exist without it.
3. Created the market space for this class of phone. Apple spend a huge amount of time marketing this thing, Samsung and others say ‘that’s fine, when you’ve whipped everyone into a frenzy for this class of device on your own buck we’ll swoop in with our blatantly copied one, ta very much.’
Make your own damn phone.
Stop. Samsung copied Apple, LG could be said to have as well. Android not so much. They made multi touch popular fair enough but the desktop metaphor was known and obvious, Displaying Apps as a grid of icons?? Not Apples credit. Andoird had one or two indicaitions of Iphone envy at the very very start, now long gone and Apple have copied mission critical aspects of Android right back at them!
apple ripped off companies like xerox . hardly innovative now is it. swipe features not apple’s either. this is simply a bad for the consumer. a bent judge me thinks.
I think you need to check your facts here, Xerox sold some of its IP to Apple in the early ’80s. Nobody was stealing, there was no court case, Apple paid for some tech innovations such as the GUI because Xerox didnt know what to do with it. Apple developed it further so it actually worked.
Apple was influenced by Xerox for sure – even Steve Jobs acknowledged that. However, they couldn’t see a way to market with the work they’d done on GUIs. Apple did and created the Macintosh.
As for swipe, I don’t think that was part of this particular case. A summary of what was is here http://www.tuaw.com/2012/08/24/breakdown-of-the-decisions-in-apple-versus-samsung-verdict/
The big winner here is the patent system, which in the tech industry is the corporate version of nuclear stockpiling.
The jury awarded to apple on 2 items not even to have infringed….! Says it all really… Need a court case a neutral location.
Patents provide important protection for individuals or companies that invent things. Without this protection, R&D investment would become much less attractive with the ultimate consequence of less innovation.
It might seem unfair here because Apple have pots of cash but they are entitled to the same protection as anyone else.
Read this, understand it and notice how simple this message is without the bs of some Apple hating paragraph.
Yes but the patents that Apple relied on are not particularly innovative. They are hardly what APple would stand up and say “these are our finest patents”. From what I can see, Apple seems to be the first to patent these things for use in a phone.
Definition: A new method, idea, product, etc: “technological innovations”. i.e. they are the first to use it in the phone so it’s exactly what the difinition dictates. Finest or otherwise, in cases like this, the product and it’s patients must be protected.
The area Samsung focused on seems to have been layout and ease of use, this is as much a patient as anything else.
Nokia made mobile phones accessible to the mass market, but they were certainly not the first manufacturer, innovation in every manufacturing sector is about looking at what’s out there and seeing how you can improve it. this is a disgraceful decision! Anti-competition.
Spot on, good post.
people who buy products , where slave.labour is the norm should be ashamed of themselves. how many suicides in Chinese sweatshops before people wake up also major tax dodger. That’s Apple .
The suicide rate among Foxconn’s 800,000 workers is lower than the rate in all of China. And of course, Apple is only one of Foxconn’s customers. All major smartphones come through the Chinese supply chain.
Seamus Well and good blame apple and only apple for “sweatshops”. If you feel that way I hope you have no other products that have a “made in China” tag on them.
Seamus, I prefer never to be personal in a reply, but for your blinkered ignorance I’ll make a rare exception. Learn to read, research and think before you post.
Why are people so anti Apple, or Samsung, or anything else for that matter. But what you want and don’t be spiteful towards a product or a company or a person. Buy why makes you happy and don’t worry about anything else. You’re all heading for strokes and heart attacks if something like this winds you up.
If anyone thinks Apple should just roll over and let its competitors get away with its innovations, they should look up Apple’s history and pay special attention to the bit about how they lost the desktop PC war.
Once bitten, twice shy and all that.
And if you look back further you’ll see how they stole all the major computer concepts such as a graphical user interface and a mouse from Xerox. Apple don’t innovate, they copy & refine, then do some fantastic marketing.
See comments below re: Apple & Xerox. Apple readily acknowledges Xerox’s pioneering work in GUI technology and how it became a part of the Macintosh. If Xerox thought Apple had ripped them off, they would have sued and won.
@Unlaoised
Xerox didn’t patent anything, no one thought software patenets were right, worthwhile or enforcable on those days.
Conor: Exactly, software didn’t even come with licences. AT&T took years to licence Unix because there was no easy way to duplicate/distribute software. The source code was open to foster innovation and sharing.
@Conor Murphy
What Steve Jobs saw at Xerox PARC and what ended up on the first Macintosh were poles apart. Xerox willingly shared the knowledge with Apple.
There’s a good account of what happened back then here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
What next ….a copyright battle between the burger giants … Not to be scoffed at… Bring it on..
Bit messy lads, bit messy.
I wonder if windows are waiting for the outcome of this and other similar cases to be finalised to release their surface device. They could turn out to be the big winner in this.
@martin valid point and noted. But here is my problem with Apple. Why are their products so damn expensive considering they are made in sweatshops and materials used to make them cost next to nothing.
I think it’s called supply and demand…
There is also the time and money that goes into developing these technologies, they are not written on a piece of toilet paper while someone is taking a toilet break. Also the “sweatshops” do give unemployed people insurable employment whether you agree with it or not they apply for those jobs and lastly those materials are less and less available, recently read an article about how difficult it is becoming to obtain them.
Because they have managed to make massive margins on their products well above the tech average.
Apple offer a product at a level no other company have and Samsung have tried to bridge the gap in quality by copying like for like (as described in their own product notes). As for price, if you look on Vodafone.ie you will see the Galaxy S III by Samsung is €20 cheaper than the iPhone, both of which can be gotten free on billpay so it being well above tech average in price is wrong and there is no question about the iPhone being hugely superior in build quality.
@gerard its a fact that Apples profit margins are 9 times the industry average on products like the iPhone. I think its genius that they can do this, fair play. There is no doubt about the build quality they offer, they make a premium product that will never have the biggest market share, if people can’t see it in the phones put a MacBook Pro beside any Dell laptop and you can see this in bucket loads. If they wanted market share they would have licensed iOS to everyone like Google or Microsoft did, it’s a different biz model. I’d be much more worried about what Google are doing with my info then Apple are doing with my cash.
@seamus in general you seem to be just ranting like the rest of the Android brotherhood. You like your phone, I like mine, game over – who cares.
You are right, I went to Mac everything, iMac, Macbook Air, iPhone, nothing else cuts it and the business model is great.
Even the newer windows based systems have not a patch on my 3 year old iMac.
@Seamus McKenzie
You seem to have taken over the tail end of this discussion and are using it to fling about any old bit of anti-Apple prejudice that comes to mind. So in the interest of fairness, maybe I should set the facts straight on a few of them.
Let’s look at your ‘sweatshop” allegation first. As we know, Apple doesn’t actually make most its own hardware products in its own factories. They are made in contractors’ facilities elsewhere, and much of it is handled by Foxconn in China. Apple took a lot of flak in the press in recent times, particularly from The New York Times, over poor workplace conditions for Foxconn workers. We should remember that Foxconn isn’t owned by Apple, nor is Apple its only customer. It also makes hardware devices for such companies as Amazon, Dell, Motorola, Nokia and our friends Samsung. However, Apple is the biggest company in the world, and its devices are deemed the shiniest, so it takes the flak. Apple has been working with the Fair Labor Association for some time now to investigate and rectify poor workplace conditions within its supply chain. Only this week, the FLA reported that Foxconn had met its obligations to date and was ahead of schedule on many more. Reprt from The Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/21/apple-manufacturer-foxconn-improves-safety?newsfeed=true While the conditions may seem harsh compared to our western standards, this is not just an Apple problem, or indeed a tech industry problem. It’s a China problem.
Secondly – tax evasion. Again the NYT had a story saying that Apple’s tax rate was only about 9%, whereas the industry average was about 25%. This came about due to a misunderstanding of the US tax system, whereby companies have to estimate their tax liability based on their previous year’s revenue. Given that Apple’s revenues have been growing at a very strong rate over the past few years, the tax estimates are coming in much lower than they should be. This is where the NYT got it wrong. The Register have a fuller explanation, should you want to go deeper into the issue http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/30/apple_corporate_tax_rate/
Thirdly – the assertion that Apple products are expensive and poor value compared to the competition. If this was the case, how in seven hells would they be recording such huge growth quarter after quarter? If a company offers poor value compared to its competitors, it will suffer, not prosper. Hang on, it must be because all Apple users are brainwashed members of the Apple cult, who will buy anything their übermeisters in Cupertino tell them to! Or maybe it’s because they like Apple products, and think they’re worth the money…
Four – “Android is trouncing Apple.” This depends on how you measure the market. In terms of units shifted, then there’s no argument – Android is definitely the stronger right now. But if you look at it from the perspective of revenue and profit share – which are of course the two metrics that mean anything in the business world – it’s a lot healthier for Apple. With 9% share of the overall mobile market at the end of FY11, they had 39% of the revenues and 75% of the profits. The next most profitable was Samsung with 16%. So if those two are taken out of the equation, every other manufacturer has to fight for the last remaining $9 in every $100 earned. The various Android vendors are shifting more units, but as long as Apple actually continue to generate a substantial profit from their share, they will be happy.
The “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal” quote – is actually a quote from Pablo Picasso. Jobs used it once, and his use of it has been misinterpreted ever since.
Source for the market share figures: http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/03/first-apples-rank-in-mobile-phone-profitability-and-revenues/
First it is well documented and there is a weight of evidence to support my point in relation to Apples sweatshops . The article in the NYT was written by a journalist whose family are Chinese and quite rightly exposed apples seedy practices in his country. To say it is a problem with China is laughable to say the least.The only reason apple went to China because China does not allow unions and and to take advantage of laws that would be deemed illegal anywhere else.You are in effect supporting slave labour. You need to look at our own history to see why you should not support slave labour in any shape or form. Dont try and tell me that STEVE JOBS didnt know.
Secondly on tax avoidance, as I have already stated The NYT times article on tax dodging is not wrong http://business.time.com/2012/05/01/apples-tax-avoidance-evil-scheming-good-business-or-both/ a good read if you have the time. BTW apple are not the only company involved in tax dodging unfortunately now a days tax dodging by large corporations is becoming a bit of a problem. When you consider that America is up to its eyeball in debt and has unbelievable poverty rates there is no excuse for it . And supporting that kind of tax dodging is disgraceful and immoral. Did Apple lobby for a lower tax rate than everyone else of course it did and that is also well documented.
Apples profits come from tax dodging and using sweatshops where people are merely slaves to make their products. That is pure evil.
Lets use a somewhat simple analogy. If Steve Jobs wrote a book and it wasnt paticularly any good. but I got the book and spiced it up a bit so that it would sell. Would that not in effect be plagiarism.
So I en effect copied ?????.
Here we go again. Foxconn employs paid workers. There are no slaves making Apple products. Sure wages are lower than in the west, but that’s why we see the words “Made in China” on so many consumer goods these days. If you really care about it, it’s up to you not to buy anything made in China. I have been following this particular story for some time and I am satisfied that Apple are doing what they can to ensure best practices are being followed.
The New York Times has printed several splash-stories about Apple in recent times. Their motivation is to sell newspapers, so showing a company like Apple in a negative light is going to get some attention. The Fair Labor Association’s motivation is to ensure workplace practices are kept to the highest standards. I know who I believe.
On the tax issue, you seem to be confusing tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal, avoidance is not. The article you linked to specified that Apple’s practices were above-board. Any company or individual will seek to lower their tax bill within the law if they can. Why should Apple be held to a higher standard? If it’s a problem for the US tax, authorities, they need to put their house in order.
Let’s use a better analogy – music. Bands often state who their influences are, and if you listen closely, you may hear something within their music that reminds you of those influences. That is acceptable. However if for example a band that said it was influenced by The Rolling Stones recorded an album that was a copy of Exile on Main Street and tried to pass it off as their own original work, that would not be acceptable.
Technology companies “borrow” ideas from one another all the time. It’s how they implement them that matters. If it’s improved upon or taken in a different direction, then no-one has any argument with that. If it violates patented processes, then it clearly is. In this case, the jury found that Samsung violated specific patents in their design of specific devices. It didn’t agree with Apple on everything though – a number of the claims were dismissed.
It’s about specifics. You are arguing in general terms.
Seamus
Android is not trouncing Apple. Android is an operating system no more no less.
Some people like using it some don’t
This case is about Samsung not Android
It is about android, “slide to unlock” is not hardware.
@unlaoised, OK, so that makes suicide acceptable then OK.
No it does not, and I never implied that.
Seams Mckenzie, you got owned biach.
Ah, the apple fanboys are out in force. Standing up for a greedy anti competitive company. By the way apple fanboys you have heard of the LG PRADA.
That’s it Seamus. When your argument runs out of steam, just call anyone who disagrees with you an Apple fanboy. Trump card. Every time.
Seamus, never mind a chip, it’s a big bag of spuds you have on your shoulder.
The apple fanboy term is pretty much a global term used by android supporters. It was not intended to offend.
The term “Apple fanboy” is a pejorative one which suggests that the accused cannot take an objective view when it comes to discussing Apple. It’s normally deployed to try to end a discussion, e.g. “No point continuing this discussion, you’re all just Apple fanboys.”
Good ruling.
@Justin, this case will do Apple more harm, than good in the long run. Google will now go after apple over the wireless tech they are using, as that is patented by Motorola, if I am not mistaken.
The Apple reality distortion field:
http://www.fiberevolution.com/2012/07/who-steals-from-whom.html
Steve Jobs, 1996: “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal”
Which basically is what Apple did.
That’s a Picasso quote.
I am not suggesting one copied the other. But questioning apple’s claims on innovation ???.
Besides some very superficial cosmetic similarities, the iPhone and the LG Prada had virtually NOTHING in common.
what makes me laugh, is that apple has borrowed and stolen from companies like xerox or goes out and buys the patents then claims everybody else is copying them.
so should Sony and LG sue apple for basically copying their design. Which by the way Apple has not denied.
If any of you bothered to read some of apple’s claims, like for example rounded corners and the grid system which were not apples to begin with.
Again I will repeat LG Prada, which was released before the IPhone. Apple does not like competition end period.
Seamus
Once again – Apple did not steal from Xerox. There was an agreement between the two companies as to how Apple could use Xerox’s original research, and it was honoured. That is a fact.
Patent politics in the tech world is complex and murky. No-one who plays the game has clean hands. But to survive in the industry, you have to play the game. It’s a bit like Game of Thrones, except instead of dragons you have a touchscreen UI patent to toast you enemies’ arses.
The issue at stake here is implementation. Creative people take inspiration from anywhere and anyone – it’s how they mould that inspiration into something that is unique and their own that matters. Microsoft have created a phone OS that is derived from many of the same technologies as iOS and Android, and Nokia are building phones to run it, but neither of them have infringed Apple’s patents. That is innovation. Blatantly and willfully copying Apple’s work and infringing their patents, as Samsung did, is not.
The LG Prada and the original iPhone were both publicly unveiled in January 2007 and released within weeks of one another that summer. To suggest that one is derived from the other is ludicrous.
You have not answered the question should LG and Sony sue apple ?????.
If Sony or LG believe they have a good case, then yes, they should.
Obama needs to go after companies like apple who quite blatantly trying to monoplize the market.Which is not good for the consumer. Apple is also quite blatantly tax dodging and that is why their profits are huge.
Anyone with a half a brain knows that this battle is all about Steve Jobs mission to destroy Android. Thankfully, Android is trouncing Apple as their products are priced for every one.
@metussa, very brave hiding behind a pseudonym aren’t we.Come up with some constructive comments rather than cheap insults. Apple are indeed major tax dodgers and that point alone is well documented and needed very little research.Apple also using sweatshops, to make their products is also well documented and in the public domain.
I suggest next time you think before you post,
This is my last comment on this subject. A bit rich coming from an apple supporter, who have always looked down their nose at anyone who doesn’t own an overpriced mac or an iPhone. And that point alone is well known and documented in regards to Apple.
Your patronizing attitude towards me sums up apple fanboys to a tee. In case you haven’t noticed this article is about apple v samsung. Hence the comments about apples seedy business practices.
Facts are facts when it comes to apple and its anti competitive practices. Apple to its fanboys can do no wrong and everyone else is jealous and resorts to BS to discredit the mother company.
BTW apple are Foxcomm biggest customers Apple is quite blatantly trying to monopolize to market by going after anyone that it sees as a threat.
As for being bitter, so what do you call Jobs vitriolic spat at android . Now that was bitter LOL.
Good day to you sir.
Why do you speak like you think you’re better than everyone else?
Looks like some anti Apple fans are butthurt.
LG Prada
PRADA Phone by LG
Manufacturer LG Electronics Compatible networks GPRS/EDGE Tri-Band (900/1800/1900) Form factor Slate Dimensions 98.8?54?12 mm Weight 85 g
Memory microSD Internal Memory Slot, behind the battery.
Display 256K colour TFT touchscreen, 240 ? 400 px
Rear camera 2 megapixel, video CIF (30 frame/s), flash Connectivity Bluetooth 2.0, USB 2.0
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada, [1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. [2] Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006. [3] An official press release showing an image of the device appeared on January 18, 2007. [1] Sales start in May 2007. It was the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen. LG Prada sold 1 million units [4][5] in the first 18 months. [6]
A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008.
source,Google.
Copying and pasting from Wikipedia tells us what exactly?
What Did Steve Jobs Know? | Mediaite
video
by James Crugnale | 2:19 pm, February 6th, 2012
In the wake of a new report out over alleged Apple sweatshops in China, CNN?s Ashleigh Banfield spoke with chief business correspondent Ali Velshi about what Apple knew and when they knew it. ?Steve Jobs ? he seems like the kind of guy who never, when he was alive, would have allowed any of this to go on,? Banfield observed. ?Did he know? Did he not know? Did he not care? Do we know??
RELATED: Shark Tank Contestant Praised By Eric Bolling For Refusing To Outsource Jobs
?The question is this,? Velshi responded. ?We all know that if you get much cheaper labor in China they don?t work in the same conditions we work in. The issue is how bad is it? There are some things called core violations: employing underaged students, unhealthy conditions. A couple of Foxconn factories within a number of months last year had two explosions caused by the aluminum dust when they brushed the iPads and iPhones. There are some violations that are worse than others and the question is how serious are the violations and in the interest of profitability, do the companies sort of turn a blind eye to it? There are people who say we told Apple what was going on.?
?We told Apple or we told someone at a low level?? Banfield questioned. ?They didn?t get it??
?No, there are allegations from human watchdog groups that said they told Apple,? Velshi explained. ?One woman went to Apple headquarters and asked to speak to someone and no one would speak to her. We?re not expecting the Chinese workers would have the same conditions today that US factory workers have, but are they being caused to work six or seven days a week standing, without ventilation. Your iPod or your iPhone gets polished to a great degree. That glass has to be shined.?
Watch the segment below via CNN:
When you googled “Apple sweatshop” where did that load of bs show up? Page 56?
BS ok then.Apple must be telling the truth and everyone else is lying.
@Gerrard, so you are condoning slave labour now,for apples cheaply made and overpriced products.
superficial cosmetic features , now you are having a laugh. Yes will put my hands up on using google you used a story by the guardian newspaper hardly a reputable source ???.
Guardian is of course a hard-nosed right-wing source of ill-conceived blather and hot air.
Oh, wait. It’s actually a well-respected newspaper of record. Unlike mediaite.com, which is as I describe above.
You need to get a hobby Seamus.
And your contribution is ???.
What difference would my contribution make to you? It’s obvious from your posts that you’re blinded by your single-mindedness and you refuse to accept any valid points put to you by other people. Your bitterness is going to give you a stroke. Go out and look at some trees or smell some flowers. You need to get that massive chip off your shoulder and lighten up.
LOL , you are having a laugh, bitterness and single mindedness and refusal to accept valid points. Do you even know what causes a stroke and what exactly is a stroke??? that gives you an idea of what I do. I put people before profit and greed end of.
Very condescending tone there. I bet you love pontificating, letting everyone know how superior your intellect is from using search engines.
Why do you single out one particular company? I’m sure the computers that the Android engineers developed the software on have components that were made in places like Foxconn.
I don’t have a business so I can’t comment on putting people before profit.
I don’t give a shit what you do Seamus. You’re probably a polymath from the way you know everything. You’re a bitter person. That’s all I need to know about you.
I’m not going to pretend I know by going to search online to find the exact physiological reasons for a stroke. I think it’s something to do with a change in blood flow to the brain. Your bitterness is causing you to be stressed and that’s not good.
(Click here for full version)
<>
by Mike Masnick
from the doesn’t-computer dept on Friday, October 21st, 2011 @ 7:39PM
There’s plenty of talk making the rounds about Steve Jobs’ comments about Android in the authorized biography that’s coming out next week. In it, Jobs apparently makes it clear that he was absolutely furious about Android “ripping off” the iPhone. According to the summary in the Huffington Post:
Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography of Steve Jobs offers an unprecedented look at the Apple co-founder’s battle-cry against Google, a company he thought was guilty of a “grand theft” when it launched its Android operating system, which competes directly with the iPhone and has surpassed it in popularity.
“I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this,” he told Isaacson of the patent lawsuit Apple filed against cell phone manufacturer HTC.
In Isaacson’s “Steve Jobs,” a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, the author recalls that Jobs, who was known for his fierce temper, “became angrier than I had ever seen him” during a conversation about Apple’s patent lawsuit, which by extension also accused Android of patent infringement.
“Our lawsuit is saying, ‘Google you f***ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off,’” Jobs said, according to Isaacson. “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product.”
This is coming from Steve Jobs, who was inspired by the graphical user interface he saw at Xerox PARC and turned that into the Macintosh. Now, as we’ve noted before, what Jobs was always great at doing wasn’t just taking an idea and copying it, but making it better. But, many would argue that’s the same thing that Google has done with Android. Yes, they clearly took inspiration from the iPhone, but there are some key differences, which many people enjoy. In fact, Steve Jobs pretty much admitted this very fact earlier this year when some of the iPhone’s upgrades appeared to be copied directly from Android.
And that’s kind of the point: part of the way innovation works is that you build on the works of others. That doesn’t just mean wholesale copying, but trying to take what works and improve on it — or take what doesn’t work well and figure out a way to make it work better. Steve Jobs did this many, many times, but so have Google and many other companies. It seems rather hypocritical to get all bent out of shape because others are doing the same thing.
Along those lines, Daring Fireball links to a wonderful discussion on this topic by designer Brian Ford, who discusses the idea of “artists copying or stealing” from one another.
Apple didn?t invent the iPod, they stole the idea and made the music industry their own. The way we buy and listen to music is now shaped almost entirely by Apple?s vision.
Apple didn?t invent the smartphone, they stole the idea and reshaped the industry in their own vision. Yes, Apple has ?copied? bits and pieces of iOS from other sources ?notifications is the obvious example ? but overall, the future of the mobile industry has been shaped by Apple.
Apple didn?t invent the tablet computer, they stole the idea and now iOS is the template for the tablet market.
I completely agree with those points. It’s quite similar to an earlier post we did about the importance of getting it right rather than being first, which pointed to a wonderful comic from Scott Meyer’s Basic Instructions that included this panel:
So I’m at a loss as to Jobs’ complaint against Android. At best, the only logical way to view his complaint is that he was upset that Google didn’t do enough on top of the idea of the iPhone to make Android completely its own. But I think that’s more of a difference in philosophy. Steve Jobs came from a very top down world view, in which the brilliant designers (him, Jonathan Ive, etc.) designed everything perfectly. Google’s world view seems to be more about setting up the system, and then letting others design the improvements. That’s messier, clunkier, and a hell of a lot uglier at first. But in the long run, I think it tends to lead to much greater innovation. Just not the kind of innovation you unveil as “and one more thing…”
In the end, the best way to sum all this up comes from the T.S. Eliot quote that Ford puts at the end of his blog post. Many people have heard the paraphrased version (often copied and attributed to others) that “good artists copy, great artists steal.” But the full T.S. Eliot quote is much more interesting and nuanced:
One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest
Key word in above article is wait for it Copying. exactly what apple did in the beginning.
Also this,case is about apple v android not paticularly Samsung.
also referenced in earlier post there was no such thing as licence patents in those days for software until apple came along.
That case against Samsung should never have been held in that area as apple pumps a lot of money in that paticular community. one juror stated after ward’s that they had more,or less decided after the first day. That is blatantly biased.
take away xerox and the iPhone would never had existed.
Also very interesting comments by Steve Jobs himself above. Admitting copying Android in iPhone 4.
Opinion presented as fact. See my earlier comments about influence/inspiration as opposed to blatant copying.
Opinions from the horses mouth I might add. Why did Apple go to China and why were staff working 6 to 7 per week and working 12 hour shifts is tantamount to slave labour regardless if they were getting paid or not. And quite disturbing you find this practice acceptable and are making excuse.
Along with LG and Sony you can add Motorola as well to the list that apple copied.
Spare me the bleeding heart Seamus. We in the West buy goods made in China because we’re not prepared to pay the price we’d have to pay if they were manufactured here.
Apple is pretty up front about how it expects its suppliers to behave. Read about it here http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/
I realise I probably can’t make you believe any of this, as you are utterly unwilling to acknowledge this side of the discussion. As such, this is my last word in this.
LOL, apple were upfront alright after they got caught. Big question did STEVE JOBS know of these seedy practices ??. Of course he did. Ah sure we are all just bleeding hearts seeing other human beings being exploited for the pursuit of profit and greed.
Here you can look up these facts if you want. 1. The rich and global companies like apple have been estimated to be hiding at least 13 trillion dollars in taxes. Legally or not no difference.
2. There is more people in slavery now than there ever was at the height of slavery in the 19th century. That is a shameful statistic.
@Donnacha,Supply and demand, apple has a meager 16.9% of the smartphone market (RTE News) .
Wait until the Iphone5 comes out & let’s see the market share then.
Besides, market share means diddly squat if you are not making a profit on each unit sold
The way Apple are acting with these stupid patent issues suggests to me that the iPhone 5 might not be all that impressive.
Previous was an article published by CBS news in May of this year
Yeh, legally by lobbying government. So you think that is acceptable when America has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world according to the united nations or is that all bs to ??.
Nothing to see here.
Actually story on sweatshop was on page one.
Knocking this on the head for the night. It’s 1am, and I need to sleep.
Good night, Seamus.
MoneyWatch) COMMENTARY By now, everyone knows how Apple legally avoids paying billions of dollars in taxes by having offices and subsidiaries in low-tax places like Nevada and Ireland.
The New York Times article that broke the news received more than 1,340 comments, last time I looked. I guess that means everyone’s had a chance to vent. Good. Now it’s my turn. Did it rub me the wrong way when I read the story? Sure. Did it get my blood pressure up? Absolutely. The real question is why? I already knew that Apple pays a far lower tax rate than oh, say Exxon Mobil and Chevron. You know, the big bad oil companies that everyone’s been demonizing lately. Together the two companies paid over $50 billion in taxes last year. Apple, the most valuable company in the world, paid $8 billion.
The truth about taxes and prosperity 10 things wrong with occupy Wall Street
The double standard is annoying, but that’s not what got me upset. What really got my stomach churning was a classic case of sour grapes. I may be the only one who’s willing to admit this, but it’s the truth, so here it is. What really bothers me about Apple avoiding California taxes by setting up shop in Nevada is that they did it and I didn’t. And that’s because the rules make it far easier for a corporation to do that than an individual. You see, 15 years ago I lived and worked in Texas and commuted back to California on the weekends, so I’m familiar with all the tax rules governing that sort of thing. In any case, that situation only existed for a few years. Otherwise, I’ve always paid California state tax on my earnings, a combined tax rate of between 40 percent and 50 percent, depending on the year. Not only that, but even after retiring from the corporate world, instead of living in Lake Tahoe and taking up residence in Nevada, I stayed here in California where long term capital gains balloon from the federal rate of 15 percent or 20 percent to a combined federal and state rate of 25 percent or 30 percent. For an individual or a family that depends to some extent on investment income, that’s significant. The catch, of course, is that individuals have to pay tax in the state of their primary residence. The same isn’t true of companies or Apple wouldn’t be able to pull off the Nevada thing when it’s based in Cupertino, Calif. Now, if Apple’s tax avoidance tactics were illegal, that would be a different story. I’d be mad, but I wouldn’t take it personally. But because a company can game the system by funneling revenue through one state or country rather than another, that’s something I take personally because I should be able to do that too, just as easily as a company can. And so should you. You know, when I worked for that company in Texas, a quarterback turned politician named Jack Kemp sat on our board of directors. That’s when I became acquainted with the concept of a flat tax system, something that made complete sense to me. Needless to say, I’m still waiting for that to happen. In the mean time, I’m heading to the pharmacy to get some Tums and Pepcid for my upset stomach. Want me to pick some up for you too?
“By now, everyone knows how Apple legally avoids paying billions of dollars in taxes by having offices and subsidiaries in low-tax places like Nevada and Ireland.”
The key word there is “legally”.
Comparing Apple (a tech company) and Exxon (an oil company) is comparing like comparing cows to horses. If you want to make a comparison, you should stay within their respective sectors.
That makes it ok then ???
have your say