Would you want to owna product from a company that does buisness like this?

[Cameron]

I must say, after having a few of my own patents, and having to file law suits against others that are infringing. I see no reason why not to sue.

I could roll over and let someone else steal my ideas, eventually be crowded out if they mass market more than me....or I can enforce my patent and my business, and be successful.

Business is business and try getting a shareholder to still fund your venture when you aren't turning a profit.....good luck.

Remember the shareholders own the company and if you aren't performing to what is expected of you, prepare to go under.

We live in a capitalistic society, live with it or leave it.

[fkshiu]

Frivolous lawsuits are par for the course in business - all business. It's simply a tool in negotiating deals nowadays, especially in the IT sector. All I did when I practiced civil law was start and defend lawsuits with little or no actual chance of success.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Cameron

I must say, after having a few of my own patents, and having to file law suits against others that are infringing. I see no reason why not to sue.

I could roll over and let someone else steal my ideas, eventually be crowded out if they mass market more than me....or I can enforce my patent and my business, and be successful.

Business is business and try getting a shareholder to still fund your venture when you aren't turning a profit.....good luck.

Remember the shareholders own the company and if you aren't performing to what is expected of you, prepare to go under.

We live in a capitalistic society, live with it or leave it.

ahh but were not talking about justified lawsuits, were talking about phony counter suits launched against smaller companies who your stold ideas from just to force them to drop the suit or go out of buisness so you don't have to pay them for there ideas you ripped off.


It seams people are still stuck on the Apple Vs. PC computer argument.. get over it or argue more in Doug's thread this is more to do with Cell phones and business preactices.

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ahh but were not talking about justified lawsuits, were talking about phony counter suits launched against smaller companies who your stold ideas from just to force them to drop the suit or go out of buisness so you don't have to pay them for there ideas you ripped off.


It seams people are still stuck on the Apple Vs. PC computer argument.. get over it or argue more in Doug's thread this is more to do with Cell phones and business preactices.

Steve

So who's business practices and lawsuits are we talking about here? Nokia suing Apple? Apple counter suing Nokia? Xerox suing everybody? Apple suing HTC? They're all suing each other. Because all the other phone companies scramble to copy the iPhone which was a big step forward? Not just as a phone but also as a business model in which the phone maker was not at the mercy of the network provider saying what features they could or could not have activated. Apple set the stage for a fully featured smartphone with few compromises insisted on by the networks. Previously the AT&Ts of the world insisted on having various features disabled etc. so they could maximize their own profits. So who's business practices were suspect?

So how is Apple different and worth attacking because of all this? Because of a few stupid articles by anti-Apple pundits who are trying to claim Apple wants to put others out of business and wants to slow down the pace of it's developments? Sorry, not sure exactly what the argument here is.

[Ron99]

Just to clarify things, who's ideas exactly did Apple rip off? HTC and Google certainly didn't come to the game first. Most likely Google ripped off Apple due to their CEOs insider knowledge from his position on Apple's Board of Directors. He was eventually forced to resign from their Board when Google decided to become a competitor to Apple.

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Just to clarify things, who's ideas exactly did Apple rip off? HTC and Google certainly didn't come to the game first. Most likely Google ripped off Apple due to their CEOs insider knowledge from his position on Apple's Board of Directors. He was eventually forced to resign from their Board when Google decided to become a competitor to Apple.

HTC manufactured touchscreen PDA's and phones for HP and Compaq years before the iPhone.
As well, the Google/Apple split occured after Apple pulled Google Voice from their apps store under pressure from AT&T which did not like the competition Google Voice provided.

Now Apple responds with a lawsuit because of the competition Google Android on HTC phones provides.

Most consumers like choices and drop in prices that competition brings. It appears Apple does not like competition.

Apple may be using accepted business practices but their press is going from bad to worse. Except for fanboys, the response to the ipad has been underwhelming. Now the forums are buzzing about the Apple/HTC lawsuit with the support is overwhelmingly on the side of HTC.

What I posted in the other Mac vs. Apple thread a few weeks ago is even more pertinent considering the lawsuit.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18377...red-apple.html

And as far as other companies not being innovative, the first pictures of the The Microsoft Courier has been released.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/m...ctures-and-de/

Finally, This is is what I did with my $1400 1st generation imac when the powersupply died. I couldn't drop in a new one because it was part of the mainboard and as with most Apple products design and appearance is more important than functionality.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by pinhead

HTC manufactured touchscreen PDA's and phones for HP and Compaq years before the iPhone.
As well, the Google/Apple split occured after Apple pulled Google Voice from their apps store under pressure from AT&T which did not like the competition Google Voice provided.

Now Apple responds with a lawsuit because of the competition Google Android on HTC phones provides.

Most consumers like choices and drop in prices that competition brings. It appears Apple does not like competition.

Apple may be using accepted business practices but their press is going from bad to worse. Except for fanboys, the response to the ipad has been underwhelming. Now the forums are buzzing about the Apple/HTC lawsuit with the support is overwhelmingly on the side of HTC.

What I posted in the other Mac vs. Apple thread a few weeks ago is even more pertinent considering the lawsuit.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18377...red-apple.html

And as far as other companies not being innovative, the first pictures of the The Microsoft Courier has been released.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/m...ctures-and-de/

Finally, This is is what I did with my $1400 1st generation imac when the powersupply died. I couldn't drop in a new one because it was part of the mainboard and as with most Apple products design and appearance is more important than functionality.

Where do we start So HTC made touchscreen devices. Whoopdeedoo. Touchscreen devices have existed for a very long time. My wife has a Samsung Instinct touchscreen phone and I can tell you it is a piece of s*^t compared to the iPhone. My wife actually calls it her iSuck. What is at issue seems to go beyond that into the specific implementation of multi touch and perhaps other technical details. I haven't read all the patents in question (several are cited apparently) and I don't know the technical details of the HTC phones or Google Android but it is quite possible that the phones and Android OS do actually infringe some of Apple's patents. Why would Apple have to stand by and allow that infringement when every other similar company enforces their patents? Does Apple have to abide by some double standard? Are people sh*&ing all over Nokia and Xerox for their lawsuits? Who cares what the press says. Are they experts in patent law and the technical details of the devices and software in question? The press can be notoriously anti-Apple and you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Are you a patent expert?

Did the press support or slam Palm for their shady implementation of iTunes syncing? Rather then use the approved ways to sync with Apple's media library Palm took the lazy and shady route of fooling iTunes into thinking it was an Apple iPod. This is not allowed according to the USB rules (each vendor has a unique ID and only that vendor can use it, Palm used Apples unique ID in their device which is not allowed). Palm could have made the effort to write the software to sync properly but they were to lazy or incompetent. But Apple is made to look like the bad guy eve though Palm was at fault.

As for the Google Apple splt this had nothing to do with Google voice but with Google's CEO probably using insider information to try to compete with Apple. When he joined Apple's Board Google did not compete with Apple. This came later and Eric Schmidt most likely took some of that inside info about the iPhone to help create Android. He could not ethically, and probably legally, continue to serve on Apple's Board when they became direct competitors to Apple and had to excuse himself.

I guess time will tell with the iPad. You can either see the potential or you don't have the vision to imagine the possibilities. I stand by my statement that Apple has likely not shown all its cards and the full potential is yet to be seen. I suspect the iPad will be a raging success and Apple will sell many of them.

Also, that article you link to is complete and utter nonsense. It has no facts, no accurate information and no substance. It is pure FUD and if you believe it well I guess you have your biases. Is cracked.com really considered an accurate and respected media source?

Point 5. How many other cell phones and networks support you modifying your phone and doing what you want with it? Personally, I like the fact Apple vets the software on the app store and have no interest in Jailbreaking the phone. That opens it up to all sorts of potential problems, malware, viruses etc. You seriously think Apple is evil because they want to ensure a stable user experience by having some control over the devices? Are the 100,000 or so approved Apps not enough for you? Do you think the cellphone networks will be happy with all sorts of unknown software running on phones connected to their networks? While remote there is a possibility that malware could crash the cell network.

Point 4. Seriously? You're going to critisize Apple for taking action against a site that was publishing confidential information that was not obtained legally? The first amendment does not protect the media when they illegally acquire information.

Point 3. Totally Bulls$%t. Nobody was tortured because they lost an iPhone prototype. Yes, the guy in China committed suicide which is sad but there were obviously deeper issues then a lost iPhone prototype. Really, this type of sensationalism belongs in the National Enquirer. The real story is more likely that this guy, who had "misplaced" prototypes several times before was actually letting Chinese counterfeiting companies look at them and knew the jig was up. Fearful of criminal charges he killed himself. Sad but not Apple's doing. And if he was beat up a bit by a security guard it wasn't authorized or accepted because that security guard was turned over to the police as well. Read this for more info:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56T0BL20090730

Point 2. Google Voice was not blocked at the request of AT&T, AT&T had nothing to do with it. It was blocked because of issues with the software that Apple asked Google to address and resubmit the application. Stuff like google voice accessing the iPhones contact list and uploading it to Google's server with obvious confidentiality implications. This was investigated by the FCC and it was found that there was no collusion between Apple and AT&T. This again is incorrect information.

Point 1. Really doesn't merit any comment. Complete ridiculous speculation based on patent. Plenty of stuff gets patented that never gets used and even if Apple did use that tech there is no way to ascertain how they would use it. The writer simply takes the absolute worst possible scenario and says we should fear Apple. Give me a break.

That article is nothing but nonsense and bulls*&t.

Finally, the Courier. Is there any evidence those are official pics from Microsoft or somebody else's rendering? And all the user interface shots and videos are also still just concept animations and not any video of the real thing. I will grant you the concept looks great but I will believe it when I see the real thing. I have little confidence Microsoft can actually pull this off. The reality will pale compared to the concept.

I like your iMac aquarium. Did you see my iReef? Are you quite sure about the power supply being the problem? I seem to remember the power supply being a separate assembly when I dismantled the computer for my iReef. Maybe repair wasn't a DIY job like your typical PC tower power supply replacement but I doubt it was completely impossible.

[Slick Fork]

I couldn't resist wading in

I like my Iphone, my wife likes her Ipod touch, I would go berserk if apple broke it because I did something I wasn't supposed to (jailbreak it). If I paid money for it, it is my RIGHT to alter it as I see fit.

What really offends me about Apple, is the "cult" that Apple users seem to get sucked into. The Mac vs. PC thread of Doug's was a great example and seems to be very typical of every Mac Vs. PC discussion out there. When pressed for a comment on Mac's, most pc users will probably admit to liking something about them be it the interface the sexy styling or whatever and then come up with their reasons why they like their PC's. Mac users however tend to echo the really misleading commercials and come up with statements like "Windows 3.11 was horrible so buy a mac today" or "Windows 7 will cause your hard drive to explode and set your house on fire, but not before Bill Gates shows up as the Anti-Christ and violates your wife". I almost NEVER hear a reasonable, fact based argument for Mac's from Mac owners, they always descend into rhetoric and pull out the strangest "facts", which is a shame because I think there are some pretty decent reasons to buy a Mac. Not good enough for me to switch but to each his own.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Does Apple have to abide by some double standard? Are people sh*&ing all over Nokia and Xerox for their lawsuits? Who cares what the press says. Are they experts in patent law and the technical details of the devices and software in question? The press can be notoriously anti-Apple and you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Are you a patent expert?

Point 5. That opens it up to all sorts of potential problems, malware, viruses etc. You seriously think Apple is evil because they want to ensure a stable user experience by having some control over the devices? Are the 100,000 or so approved Apps not enough for you? Do you think the cellphone networks will be happy with all sorts of unknown software running on phones connected to their networks? While remote there is a possibility that malware could crash the cell network.


Point 3. Totally Bulls$%t. Nobody was tortured because they lost an iPhone prototype. Yes, the guy in China committed suicide which is sad but there were obviously deeper issues then a lost iPhone prototype. Really, this type of sensationalism belongs in the National Enquirer. The real story is more likely that this guy, who had "misplaced" prototypes several times before was actually letting Chinese counterfeiting companies look at them and knew the jig was up. Fearful of criminal charges he killed himself. Sad but not Apple's doing. And if he was beat up a bit by a security guard it wasn't authorized or accepted because that security guard was turned over to the police as well. Read this for more info:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56T0BL20090730


Finally, the Courier. Is there any evidence those are official pics from Microsoft or somebody else's rendering? And all the user interface shots and videos are also still just concept animations and not any video of the real thing. I will grant you the concept looks great but I will believe it when I see the real thing. I have little confidence Microsoft can actually pull this off. The reality will pale compared to the concept.

your first one.. no they ARE the double standard.. Ron apple is being targeted because 50% of the lawsuits they launch are unfounded and are launched only to destroy compatition through lenghty court battles that drain there money.. remember PFO trying to take on what you call the "Bogus" pattent.

your answer to point 5 is ok.. but the issue with jail break was more to take your iphone on "other" networks that don't offer iphones. but it is a mute point anyways as in 2011 I believe that you can take your phone with you to any network. Thanks CRC but if Xerox wins its lawsuits it doesn't matter, you won't be able to get a iphone in NA anymore so the networks will drop support for them and then you will be wishing you could jailbreak it.

Point 3, no he wasn't torchered, but the relentless interagation, firing of him and the lawsuit caused hom to comitt suicide.. still something I wouldn't want on my hands but Steveo is ok with it.

as for the pics from microsoft.. doesn't interest me, I think thoes little things are a waist of time. my storm lets me do all junk I need it to do.

Steve