Bad news for Apple in courts. Waits on Calico_Pie to defend them



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...s_patent_case/


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09..._plan_lawsuit/

Maybe it's just preferring what I am used to, but I actually like the subtle blue (was once green, possibly will be white in 4.4) tinge that indicates the list end in Android. The "bounce" is a not-quite-skeumorphism-but-almost that just wouldn't really fit in the clean look of modern-day Android. In fact, was the "bounce" ever actually part of Android itself, or just the manufacturers' overlays?

As far as I can tell Apple patented the bounce thing in June 2007 but because Jobs had demoed it five months earlier it was deemed prior art, so due to differences between US and German patent law was not covered by the patent in Germany.

When you say they are in legal trouble over it, I'm not sure quite what you mean. All it seems to mean its that it's more like a Get out of jail card for Google, rather than anything that lands Apple in any sort of legal trouble.

If I've misunderstood that, I'm sure I'll be corrected.

With the class action thing, without knowing too much about it, aren't the data plan contracts more to do with AT&T?

Watch out for posting links to articles though - Stiggles will be all over you for that sort of stunt!

Awaits usual barrage of abuse over not very much.

You just don't quit do you...

Do you work for Apple?

Seems genuine questions - you seem to be looking for more than there actually is

Don't quit what? The OP seemed to want a comment. Some might even call it baiting.

What did I say that was so controversial?

I'll be all over it?

No. Wrong again.

What i said to you the other day was you base ALL of your information on daft articles that mean normally nothing.

These articles posted actually have some facts behind them. Unlike the ones you read...

Uh-huh. Bit of selective amnesia there I suspect, but hey.

And you know, I didn't really think you'd be all over it.

Uhm no.

That is what i said.

Yes, I know that's what you said.

Must be sleepyness, but i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!!

They weren't questions before he edited his post.
Look at my comment for the full original post.

It looked like Calcio was making statements defending Apple again.

Your quite says this:

I don't know a whole lot about it, but with the bounce thing, it doesn't seem very clear what legal trouble they are in.

With the class action thing, without knowing too much about it, aren't the data plan contracts more to do with AT&T

The first is saying he is not clear about what the article is saying and the second he appears to be saying he thinks AT&T are more like than Apple to be in bother for what the contracts have in them.

Unless this has changed from what he originally said I stand by my previous comment.

It looks more like wanting clarification than sticking up for Apple.

No, he was doing what he always does and trying to push anything negative off Apple and blame others.

This is one of the reasons I banned him from my Xiaomi thread

You didnt read it before jumping to Apples defence! Surprise

Boy have we patented it ..... Ummmm no actually

Sorry for the confusion.

I know what you said, it's just that it's demonstrably not true.

When you said:

"you base ALL of your information on daft articles that mean normally nothing."

What you perhaps meant was:

"You post some links sometimes with stuff I don't agree with."

Don't need to read stuff when apple are not to blame ... Whatever it is ... silly you

I did read the article.

From the article:

"The lawsuit, filed on June 9, 2010, accused Apple and AT&T of using bait-and-switch chicanery when selling those iPads, promising unlimited data plans that would, the complaint alleged, "always be available at the customers option" – but such plans were eliminated by AT&T on June 7, 2010.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't data plans between AT&T and the customer? Apple may have co-promoted the offer with AT&T, and presumably took some of the hit because of that.

If you can show that Apple were involved in the actual data plan contracts that the customers had, then of course they are as culpable as AT&T. But if they are not, then I don't think they are.

That's not defending Apple, that's just common sense based on high parties the contracts are between.

Going back to the patent ruling, what legal trouble are Apple in?

The first story isn't even about blaming anyone for anything.

With the second story, unless I'm missing something, AT&T are predominantly to blame. If the contracts were between AT&T and the customers, and it was AT&T who changed the contracts.


Like, how old are you? You do realise I'm not actually banned, right?

What i don't get it why you are even questioning this?

They have settled and will be paying out. Is this not enough for you to realise they were part to blame as well?

Anyway, dont apple tell networks what to do in relation to their products?

The other part i guess was the ban on the moto products or something and now the patent has been ditched allowing moto to sue apple for any lost revenue one the injunction has been overturned.

Hmm I wonder why apple are paying the lions share of the settlement and legal fees then If it had nothing to do with them.

Ah perhaps it's out of the goodness of their heart just like when they saved the publishing industry for everyone from the evil Amazon empire, that must be it

I have already said why they are involved. Presumably they promoted it alongside AT&T, so at the very least they are guilty by association.

But who would the contracts have actually been between? I would have thought they'd have been between AT&T and the customer.

The patent thing just seems like a mess. Am I right in thinking this is the timeline:

1. Jobs demos the iPhone.
2. Apple patents the bounce effect.
3. The Moto uses the bounce effect.
4. Apple wins injunction against the Moto.
5. Google realise that Jobs demoed it before it was patented, making it prior art, and so invalidating the injunction.

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the whole patent issue generally, isn't that just a get out of jail card for Google?

Isn't it just saying "Ah! But you showed it to is before you patented it, so we're OK to copy it!"

Not to say that they did or didn't copy it, but purely in legal terms with respect to the patent rulings.

You are hard work!

Stiggles answered the other part thanks

I don't know. Goodwill? Who knows.

I've already said that If Apple were a named party on the contracts they'd be equally culpable. Is there any reason to think they were if data plan contracts are usually between the network provider and the customer?


Did they? I certainly didn't ever say that, if that's what you're trying to suggest. Be a poppet and stop misquoting me. Thanks.