Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Apple Tells Retailers To Stop Selling Certain Samsung Devices

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the getting-a-bit-ahead-of-ourselves dept.

Android 308

walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has been sending out letters to carriers and retailers who sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus, informing them of a court-mandated ban on sales and warning them against continuing to market the devices. The court order for the patent case on the Galaxy Tab says Samsung and "those acting in concert" with them are enjoined from selling the devices, and Apple has used the letters to point this out. Samsung, of course, disagrees: "Apple’s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pretty Soon... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40647919)

They'll be sending inspection teams to your home and office, "for your protection".

Re:Pretty Soon... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40647969)

Except for the fact that the ruling is very clear and supports Apples actions.

From TFA:

Samsung claims that "Apple’s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not". In Samsung's opinion, "they are permitted to sell their existing inventory, even without a stay". However, both preliminary injunctions clearly relate not only to Samsung's employees, agents etc. (including its subsidiaries and "partners") but also to "those acting in concert with any of them". Here's what Judge Koh's orders say:

"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, [the relevant product], and any product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and [infringe the relevant intellectual property right]."

Re:Pretty Soon... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648259)

Ya, no. Retailers that have already purchased product and have them in inventory are free to sell those items. Samsung and it's distributors are no longer allowed to sell the devices to retailers or end-users. If a retailer is holding inventory on behalf of Samsung or it's distributors in a form of consignment, then no, they can't sell them.

You see it the way Apple does; that ALL sales must stop and that's not the case. Selling inventory you've already paid for is not working in concert with the manufacturer. Samsung listing your website or store as a place to get the product, is.

Re:Pretty Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648377)

Amusingly, accepting this view of what the "sale" of a device means un-spins Samsung's "sales numbers" as being to actual end-users.

Re:Pretty Soon... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648393)

Except for this part: are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States

It's black and white. Not ambiguous. Not arguable. You may not like it, and I'm sure that's why the parent was modded down, but it's stated pretty clearly. Apple won the injunction, and it would be foolish of them to not leverage it.

Re:Pretty Soon... (1, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648421)

Who gives a rat's ass? I may go looking for a Samsung. Screw Apple, and screw the judges too. Whatever happened to the concept of free market?

Oooops, my bad. The market is only free if the rich sumbitches agree to make it free.

Re:Pretty Soon... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648725)

The prohibition is against *sales*, not against purchasing. If you do purchase one within the USA, then you have not violated the injunction, but I believe the one who sold it to you would have.

Re:Pretty Soon... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648449)

Except for this part: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them

Especially considering that there's no ban on Galaxy Nexus. Apple's going the way of 90's era Microsoft, and that's sad.

Re:Pretty Soon... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648561)

I don't recall Microsoft using the courts to uphold patents to prevent copycat competition.

Re:Pretty Soon... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648857)

Except for this part: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them

Especially considering that there's no ban on Galaxy Nexus. Apple's going the way of 90's era Microsoft, and that's sad.

Retailers are considered partners.

Re:Pretty Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648397)

So by your logic, any company can avoid an impending injuction by setting up shell companies, and selling them vast quantities of infringing product prior to an injunction going into effect?

Re:Pretty Soon... (1)

CBM (51233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648615)

So by your logic, any company can avoid an impending injuction by setting up shell companies, and selling them vast quantities of infringing product prior to an injunction going into effect?

If the shell companies are acting in concert with Samsung, then no.

Florian Mueller (4, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648407)

Worth pointing out that this article was written by Florian Mueller of "Top Anti-Android Blogger Florian Mueller is Being Paid by Oracle" [dailytech.com] fame. He has been proven wrong before, and so we should probably wait for some better reporting on this story. That said, I would say he is right about the ban on Samsung extending to third parties that "act in concert" with Samsung to continue selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but he is wrong that the ban applies to really independent third parties who are selling the Tab 10.1 without "acting in concert" with Samsung (i.e. third party importers etc.). To stop those guys, Apple needs to take them to court.

Re:Pretty Soon... (5, Interesting)

kelarius (947816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648265)

Except there is no injunction against the Nexus, just the Tab 10.1 (the old version noone sells anymore). The Nexus was cleared for US sale last week. This is not only overreaching but blatantly fraudulent. Samsung needs to get their lawyers warmed up.

Re:Pretty Soon... (1, Informative)

cruff (171569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648001)

They already did that with that iPhone prototype that was lost in a bar.

Re:Pretty Soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648257)

... and the US says Iran customers not to buy Oil from Iran... and there is no UN resolution on that. So what's news here? It's a whole new World order.

annoying? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40647953)

I own a mbp, 2 iPhones, and an iPad... but this is getting annoying. think I'll go buy a
galaxy s3 today.

Re:annoying? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648049)

Why? it's an inferior phone. Grab a nexus.

Re:annoying? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648065)

It's illegal to sell a Galaxy Nexus in Slashdot's home country. RTFA.

Re:annoying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648217)

What are you on? The point is that it is legal for anyone to sell the Galaxy Nexus except Samsung.

Just because someone, somewhere has violated some IP law does not mean that everyone everywhere that owns the device suddenly are no longer allowed to sell theirs.

Re:annoying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648639)

Way to completely miss the point. The point is no one is allowed to sell the Nexus, if they are in any way affiliated with Samsung. Go read the second sentence of the summary.

Re:annoying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648679)

a) Point is third-party resellers are not affiliated with Samsung

b) Bigger point is there is no ban on Galaxy Nexus, it was lifted last week. If they started sending those letters only this week, it's outright anticompetetive and possibly illegal move.

Re:annoying? (1)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648071)

How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?

Re:annoying? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648149)

How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?

It's annoying to support this kind of bickering with my dollars. At least since I really want 75% of all tech patents invalidated (because they are too obvious) and don't think software patents should exist at all. If you buy from a company you are supporting their business practices, all of them. Don't know about "annoying" but it's quite legitimate to scrutinize what you are patronizing. It's no surprise that not everyone will like how a given company does business.

Re:annoying? (0)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648713)

It's annoying to support this kind of bickering with my dollars.

You aren't supporting anything, you paid for actual products, it wasn't a donation.

At least since I really want 75% of all tech patents invalidated (because they are too obvious) and don't think software patents should exist at all.

Invalidation is not the proper way to deal with the problem as it won't change the system in any way. The best way to change the system is to actually push for this kind of legal warfare until governments realize that it's causing more harm than good (assuming it actually is). Even then care must be taken to ensure that the solution doesn't end up being worse than the original problem.

If you buy from a company you are supporting their business practices, all of them.

No I am not, I am buying a product.

Don't know about "annoying" but it's quite legitimate to scrutinize what you are patronizing. It's no surprise that not everyone will like how a given company does business.

You are perfectly justified to opt out if a company does not do business with you the way you think they should; how they do business with others in order to serve your needs, however, should be no concern to you. It does not make sense to be concerned about that because that ethical mentality is a huge can of worms and you'd not really be buying anything from anyone if you knew everything there is to know about their business practices. If you want to care, then at least be glad that Apple is actually open about their business practices, unlike many other companies.

Re:annoying? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648841)

The best way to change the system is to actually push for this kind of legal warfare until governments realize that it's causing more harm than good (assuming it actually is)

Except that patents are specifically designed TO cause competitive harm. They're designed to protect an innovator from being copied by a competitor, for a while at least.

So if you really don't want this legal warfare, you're going to have to get rid of patents, and even the ideas behind patents, and instead let competition be an all out warfare. Which sounds great in theory, until it's your time & money you put into building something only to be scooped by another company with a spy.

Apple: You do the nice gear... (4, Insightful)

craznar (710808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40647955)

... and leave the law to the authorities.

Mmmmk?

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (3, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648163)

Samsung should just stop selling components to Apple...
Let them invent & manufacture that stuff themselves.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (4, Funny)

macshit (157376) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648487)

Oh come on ... Apple's completely exhausted from inventing the rectangle! The rectangle!

What more do you want from them?!

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648489)

because there are no other companies that could manufacturer components for Apple. It's Samsung or no one.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648683)

Also, because it's one of Samsung's largest revenue sources.

Apple is very deliberately trying to separate themselves from Samsung by funding development of other manufacturing facilities that are not owned by Samsung.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (2)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648251)

Actually, I would much prefer the enforcement of copyright law to be on the copyright holder instead of the taxpayer. If we're stuck with silly copyright laws, we might as well avoid paying to enforce it.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (0)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648491)

So you support all actions taken by MPAA and RIAA?

Unless you also state that a copyright holder must be a physical person.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (1)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648785)

So you support all actions taken by MPAA and RIAA?

I agree with the grandparent, and that doesn't mean I support the RIAA/MPAA. The main reason why I don't support them is because they abuse the courts in order to gain information about citizens that they should never have access to in order to practice extortion. Instead they should just complain to an authority, mention all the steps they took in order to prevent the violations, and only then expect authorities to take action. This is essentially what Apple is doing, they are making sure that no retails can claim lack of knowledge by directly informing them and guaranteeing that they will face consequences should that not be enough. Apple is not extorting anyone here.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648595)

This is a patent issue, not a copyright one .. patents are very different to (and far worse than) copyrights.

this has nothing to do with copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648675)

This fight is about patents. Patents and Copyright are both branches of intellectual property rights, but they are NOT the same.

Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648523)

Instead of simply notifying Samsung's affiliates, they should have just sued Samsung and the affiliates for violating the order by continuing the sale of the devices.

That would be much nicer, right?

Thanks Apple (4, Interesting)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40647961)

If you hadn't made such a fuss about the Samsung Tabs they would not be so popular today, Here in Australia they are very hard to find, you have to pre-order it while the ipads sit in the shops. I am not suggesting that they are outselling the ipad, but there is a real demand which, in part, has been created by the market leader. What a weird world we are in today!

Re:Thanks Apple (0, Flamebait)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648099)

That's no more evidence of strong demand than it is of short supply. Furthermore, how can you claim that iPads are sitting in the stores? Do you work for a retailer? The iPad 3 was on a worldwide short supply for months, and that was effectively due to huge demand!

Re:Thanks Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648153)

Someone makes an observation.. fanboi swoops in to rescue his chosen toy.

Do you have any evidence that Kangburra is lying? STFU then. You are a troll..

Re:Thanks Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648191)

He didn't say Kangburra was lying, he said that his conclusions didn't follow from the facts. The only thing certain from the original statement is that Tab sales outstripped the supply.

Re:Thanks Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648255)

Then he proceeded to do the same thing.

The iPad 3 was on a worldwide short supply for months, and that was effectively due to huge demand!

No evidence. Assumption bias fueled hypocrisy.

Is there no doubt as to why analytical people despise Apple culture with such fervor that they will avoid it even when it is a reasonable alternative?

Re:Thanks Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648719)

So he should have waited until Tuesday evening when Apple releases the data showing exactly that.

Re:Thanks Apple (2)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648865)

No evidence. Assumption bias fueled hypocrisy.

If there is assumption bias, it is not mine [appleinsider.com] , though you can always wait for the earnings conference calls to be sure.

Is there no doubt as to why analytical people despise Apple culture with such fervor that they will avoid it even when it is a reasonable alternative?

The term you're looking for is rational, and if you avoid something when it's a reasonable alternative then you are not being rational yourself.

Re:Thanks Apple (5, Insightful)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648289)

That's no more evidence of strong demand than it is of short supply.

The iPad 3 was on a worldwide short supply for months, and that was effectively due to huge demand!

The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.

Re:Thanks Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Deorus (811828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648897)

The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.

There was no contradiction, I just assumed that everyone was well aware of the iPad's success, I was not the one making charges, so the burden of proof was not on me. If you aren't, feel free to read one of my other replies to this branch of the thread to at least get a clue, as I actually fulfilled the burden of proof that I never had to begin with.

Re:Thanks Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648349)

That's no more evidence of strong demand than it is of short supply. Furthermore, how can you claim that iPads are sitting in the stores? Do you work for a retailer? The iPad 3 was on a worldwide short supply for months, and that was effectively due to huge demand!

Wait wait wait, so you're saying that saying a shortage is not caused by excessive demand, and then you claim a shortage is caused by excessive demand.!?
Well which is it? This would of course be pure fanboi'ism.

As to the facts: if anything has a shortage then it is indicative of demand outpacing supply. That doesn't mean that demand is huge or that supply is small, it just means that demand > supply. In the same way that 2 > 1, 3 > 2 and 5000 > 4000 > 1.

Re:Thanks Apple (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648443)

The iPad 3

Officially there's no such thing as an "iPad 3" - it's just "the New iPad". It might be the worst product name ever, but it is what it is.

Re:Thanks Apple (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648677)

What will Apple call it when the next iPad comes out? It's going to need a moniker; "The New iPad" is ambiguous.

As far as I'm concerned it's the iPad 3.

Re:Thanks Apple (4, Interesting)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648181)

Yep, Streisand effect, thanks to Apple I have been hearing more news of Google's offerings then I have Apple's.

Re:Thanks Apple (1, Informative)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648337)

You are either severely deluded or a troll.

Apple's market share in Australia was last measured at 84% [idc.com]

Re:Thanks Apple (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648707)

That was last year, I was hunting a Samsung in June 2012!

Weird... (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40647963)

It's almost like in this sector, patents are hurting innovation. No wait, that can't be right...

Re:Weird... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648097)

yes... multiple copies of the same thing is SOOO innovative.

Re:Weird... (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648305)

Because, you know, phones are just a square of plastic with all the same parts inside...

Re:Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648415)

1 of 2 things is true. either:

1) smartphones are not innovative. Therefore Apple's actions have no effect on innovation

or

2) smartphones are innovative, and Apple has a right to their patent and to stop Samsung from selling a device (assuming infringement, which a court objectively looked at and decided there was).

So either there is no innovation, or the innovation already occurred at Apple.

Re:Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648573)

You fail logic forever, so go away.

Smartphones, as whole, are not innovative. What's inside your smartphone, on hardware and software level, has bits of innovation here and there with every generation.

Blocking competitor because they infringe on your huge inventions of "searching multiple sources at once" and "replacing emails and phone numbers with hyperlinks" is a way for Apple to cop out of competing on merit.

But, well, you already know that "innovation occured at Apple". All of it. I mean, they invented searching, and sliding locks and regex replace, what else there is for others to innovate? Others might as well close their mobile division at once, innovation already happened.

Re:Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648697)

You're completely right... if I come up with a better version of chapter 11 of the latest Harry Potter book, I have the RIGHT to copy all of the other chapters with my chapter 11.

You're an idiot.

Re:Weird... (1, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648121)

What innovation? Neither Apple nor Samsung sell innovative products...

Re:Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648211)

SHUTUP... making the millionth version of a rectangle with a touch screen is the most innovative thing there is. Especially if you put Android on it.

Re:Weird... (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648297)

Why do I have Microsoft windows and apple OS in my head, same with the mouse with xerox... lol

Re:Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648327)

I'm surprised you can even spell 'innovation' if you think Apple hasn't completely changed the mobile market. You don't force markets to change by lacking innovation.

Re:Weird... (1)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648411)

What innovation? Neither Apple nor Samsung sell innovative products...

Apple had great innovation but two things happened: 1) They are mostly sitting back and riding the iPhone success. There has been lots of evolutionary improvement in both iPhone and iRippoff devices, but no revolutionary improvements like the iPhone. 2) Steve Jobs is dead. There simply isn't anyone else who will take the reins like he did. Apple has begun the slow decline back to mediocrity with the rest of the pack.

-=Geoskd

Re:Weird... (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648825)

What innovation? Neither Apple nor Samsung sell innovative products...

I guess it depends on what one means by "innovation". Myself, I think the only actual recent innovation in the field of anything hardware-related was the invention of memristors. Everything else are just iterations over iterations of the same old resistor/capacitor/inductor, under the same old principles of computer science. But if you expand the definition of innovation to include some of those iterations, then at some point, yes, Apple can be seen as an innovator.

Re:Weird... (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648629)

Makes me wonder if Apple is going to start suing other manufacturers when/if they ever release their iPad mini...

I bought the Nexus 7 yesterday, and one of the reasons I bought it immediately is because of that thought.

this thread for fanboys (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648007)

All fanboys defending Apple can reply to this thread so we can ignore them.

Just to remind you of how we'll reply to you: 1) Apple are abusing patents; 2) compete on merit; 3) Apple's talent is to identify good ideas, and doesn't do much research of its own anyway, so it should be grateful that most other academics and commercial enterprises aren't so litigious.

Thanks.

Re:this thread for fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648127)

All fanboys defending Apple can reply to this thread so we can ignore them.

How about identifying yourself so we can be reciprocal? Not that we need to, you'll show up on my freaks list eventually, so I'll know who you are either way.

Re:this thread for fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648207)

Why? Did the hat fit?

Re:this thread for fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648317)

So, you post AC demanding that, in the name of reciprocity, another AC poster identify himself? Let me know how that works out for you.

No surprise here (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648077)

Why wouldn't they ? This has always been their way to make business and I don't think it will stop in the future. If it's not illegal to the point where they will only face a slap on the wrist they will do it. I think to their eyes, that if you do that kind of action and you get a slap on the wrist and you get told your a bad boy...then why not. It's worth the risk

eventually (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648105)

The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies will mean the USA will fall to second rate status in the world. By then China, Brazil, Korea, India, etc will grow wise to this lame "intellectual property" scam, and the next American Steve Jobs wont stand a chance.

When that day comes, and other countries say it was us who invtented this aggressive international enforcememt of this completely bullshit monopoly maintenance technique, just be happy there is and was an alternative strand of thought on the concept of intellectual property: no.

Then maybe we can fnally rid the world of this abomination. It is not ised to protect small inventors, it is used to enforce anti-market monopolistic practices.

It won't happen ... (1)

boorack (1345877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648209)

... as long as US is the most powerful military power in the world. Since 2-nd World War oil (and by extension - USD backed by oil) was used as primary mean for US to control other countries and as asource of extraordinary benefits. Any nation trying to contest this state of affairs was pushed back with all possible means ("bringing democracy" included). Now as we've reached peak oil, US grip on the rest of the world will weaken unless they find some other means to maintain it. My bet is that IP in general and GMO's IP in particular is main contender to replace oil as USD collateral. Expect all countries trying to get rid of US-mandated IP laws to be forced back in line with all possible means (with "bringing democracy" included - if necessary).

Re:It won't happen ... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648313)

You need oil to live. Literally, a lot fertilizer is energetically deroved from fossil fuels.

But no one needs IP. Its not going to get to that. besides, military status is a direct corollary to economic status. As the USA's economic status fades due to horrible right wing social and economic policies our military status will fade as well.

Re:It won't happen ... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648761)

As the USA's economic status fades due to horrible right wing social and economic policies our military status will fade as well.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, I'm not even sure where to start.

Re:eventually (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648647)

The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies

Apparently you fell asleep in 2008 and just now woke up. The "right wing" hasn't had the presidency for nearly 4 years now. It hasn't had Congress for even longer.

Sorry. This is pure Left. As is NDAA, Fast & Furious, Solyndra et al, etc etc etc. And now the destruction by Executive Order, completely bypassing Congress and effectively nullifying the law by fiat, of one of Bill Clinton's biggest successes, welfare reform.

I, for one, welcome our government-cheese, foodstamp, and welfare-Cadillac-driving overlords?

Strat

Re:eventually (4, Informative)

Kharny (239931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648783)

LOL, you really think the dems are leftwing?
They talk slightly more leftwing than reps, but their politics are the same

Re:eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648797)

Sounds a lot like the right wingers. Except for the names...

Intel - 1b Euro panelty, anybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648109)

They better watch it. Intel's on the hook for practices like that, to the tune of 1b Euros.

Whiny (2, Insightful)

jellie (949898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648119)

Why does Apple need to complain and whine about all these stupid patents? It's already the largest and most profitable technology company, and its cash reserves are insane. Everything it's doing is just like the Microsoft of the 1990's. And Steve Jobs was possibly a bigger asshole than Gates and Ballmer. Except, for some reason, people actually liked Jobs.

Re:Whiny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648193)

i like Gates.

I respect Jobs.

I dislike Apple, they are more a Bad Apple now days then a good one.

So that means lots of fire sale (5, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648137)

....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.

Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.

Oh intelectual property of patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648173)

The weapon of choice between corporate thuggery, bullying competition and inovation.

I feel no sympathy whatsoever for either. Maybe because its a mutual feeling. Afterall, either one only care about getting rich fast and fuck everyone else. They don't even create that many jobs compared to the profits they harvest.

So, both can sue themselves to extinction. Wishfull thought. They'll keep sitting in golden chairs scrimming in court while rolling high and fucking the maid's/poolboy's and the rest of us dreaming in achieving and maintaining some basic moderate desire such as family and a paid house without debts to the bank.

Fuck apple, Fuck samsung and Fuck the courts.

Re:Oh intelectual property of patents (1)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648347)

Between these two (Samsung and Apple) they *do* create tens of thousands of jobs (if not more), mostly in China of course.

They wont sue each other out of existence, just the tablet markets, if it gets that bad they will just pull out, if this carries on they will just end up doing what they did before. One selling highly priced computers, the other selling, well, practically everything else technology wise.

This spat between the two of them is getting tiring, I've never bought any Apple products, and I don't intend to, I've used a few, and they work well, but I just don't like the closed eco system, and I'm not particularly interested in learning the nuances of a new OS. On the other hand, I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the only thing that annoys me is the speed they are taking to update Android versions (my HTC phone was updated months ago), next time I'd probably go with something more direct. Will this affect my intentions to buy things like TV's from Samsung? No, because you don't get these kinds of issues with those.

Is this just a brilliant step in the plan.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648177)

to have software patents totally removed from law? Nice one Apple, keep hammering those nails into the software patents coffin. My understanding is that software is nothing more than algorithms, set theory and logic, discreet maths... it's time this farce is finally brought to it's logical conclusion.

Dump software patents now.

pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648227)

apple is like a little kid in a sandbox that tattle tails on everyone and cries in the corner like little Bitch! #boycotapple

Grade school analogy (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648279)

If you want be her friend, you can't be mine!

You know what? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648389)

Fuck Apple. I've been thinking about replacing the 3 year old Mac Pro that I use for music production with a new one, but I'm about done with Apple's stormtrooper bullshit.

Seriously. Fuck Apple. You know fads come and go, and nerds and geeks carried Apple through some bad spots. Let's see how long Apple's dominant position in the market lasts when people start to realize that the corporation behind those snappy ads and shiny products are greedy, heavy-handed scum.

I've just decided Apple products are no longer cool. The Apple logo is not cool and owning anything Apple is not cool. Since I was among the first who decided that Apple was cool, decades ago, I feel I have the responsibility now end this thing.

It doesn't matter if I'm the only one. When I see someone with an iPhone or iPad, I'm going to see them as particularly uncool. I will tell them.

Watch and see if it doesn't start a trend. Not because I'm special, but because I'm NOT special. If this is how I feel, it's almost certain that there are lots of other people who feel this way because I am not special. The not-special people who made Apple cool to begin with will be the ones to remove their cool status.

Re:You know what? (5, Insightful)

dew-genen-ny (617738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648513)

Couldn't. Agree. More. There's a reason I've ditched my iphone and will be soon to ditch my ipad.... not that they're not totally cool devices, just that Apple are acting like such douches. I remember how much I used to hate on Microsoft for not being open, not allowing everyone to play and now here we are, Apple are doing the EXACT same thing. Thank fuck Android is open source, this bullshit ends here.

Re:You know what? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648837)

"I used to hate on Microsoft for not being open, not allowing everyone to play"

Wait, what?

Seriously, on their platform MS has allowed everyone to play as they see fit for some time. It hasn't been an issue since DOS days, And frankly, I really don't care that much about Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordperfect anymore. On the hardware manufacturing side of things, MS has not limited who can make x86 hardware in any way, shape or form. Infact, they used to even make versions of windows that ran on a number of non-x86 architectures, and now that ARM is returning to viability, they are starting that again too!

On the other hand, Apple has almost always been a closed system, Exempting a brief period in the mid 90s when they licensed clones (and the clone manufactures ate their lunch), NOONE has been allowed to make a OSX compatible system, or license a copy of OSX for it. Apple has ALWAYS been more closed then MS. It's in their blood.

CAPTCHA: slaver

Re:You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648759)

See I'm the other person.

I've never seen Apple as "cool", I've always thought of their products for the stupid people doing stupid things, even back in the old days when they were not reaching critical stupid person mass. The exception being art and music applications back in the day, they did stand out until they all were ported to other operating systems.

Up to the iPhone itself nothing has impressed me even the iPad was just a knock off made up of terrible hardware and software. The iPhone changed this somewhat but for only shortly and only because it provided a kick in the ass to everyone else who had been ignoring this area except Microsoft who continuously fails in this department and nobody will ever accuse of being "cool". The world has changed now and everyone has more than caught back up, I rarely see white headphones anymore and I live in Manhattan, so Apple's day is dawning, doubly so with their great leader now gone.

 

Re:You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648805)

If you buy a product to make yourself look and feel cool then you have issues.

I like Macs, I like PCs, I like iPhone, iPad, I dislike Android's OS. However I do not buy a product just to make myself look cool. If you wish to call me uncool for liking Apple then go ahead. I understand you have no self worth it's all based on your products.

Re:You know what? (2)

godawful (84526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648847)

*sees someone with an iphone*
"hey man, you're not cool!"

Good luck with that. The Internet brings out the hyperbole in people, and what an age we live in where we can find outrage in the smallest things.

I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648409)

I think that they are actually right about the scope of the injunction. If I remember correctly, the prohibition was against *ANY* sales of the device within the USA, and retailers should have probably returned any devices that they had.

If somebody else has specific information to indicate otherwise, please feel free to correct me.

Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648583)

Sale in this context refers to Samsung selling the device.

Samsung cannot sell the device direct. Samsung can no longer sell the device to retailers.

We are not Samsung's customers.

Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648663)

Did the injunction specifically refer to that? From what I remember, the injunction used language to the effect of "barring all U.S. Galaxy Tab sales", and was not directed at any particular entity.... just general prohibition against sale of the device anywhere within the the US. I would hope that if somebody knows otherwise, they can refer me to the specific text of the ruling that indicates it.

Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648729)

It's Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them [slashdot.org] who are banned from selling, importing, making and using gTabs in US.

"Using" part is funny, will Apple next conduct searches at Samsung's officers, directors, employees etc. homes to enforce the injunction in full? "He's taking the Tab from his desk drawer... He's turning it on! Team Bravo, move out!"

Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40648753)

But aren't retailers that sell the device "acting in concert" with them?

Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648895)

Yes, for everyone except fandroids.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648509)

The C4thedrYal [goat.cx]

complete boycott of apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40648709)

Please join me in a complete boycott of apple and anything apple associates with or produces.FIGHT THE APPLE! VIVE LA FRANCE

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?