It's as CP says though - Apple's patent was ruled invalid because of prior art. The prior art was Apple demonstrating the feature.
Apple in legal trouble over bounce patent and 3G data plans
2 of 3
Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“You are hard work!
Stiggles answered the other part thanks
”
“You are hard work!
Stiggles answered the other part thanks
”
Yes, I get that - the injunction will be overturned.
As far as I can tell, that just gets Google off the hook, rather than land Apple in legal trouble.
Or am I missing something here?
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Is there any reason to think they were if data plan contracts are usually between the network provider and the customer?
.”
“Is there any reason to think they were if data plan contracts are usually between the network provider and the customer?
.”
Yeah the fact they coughed up the lions share of the settlement before they were found guilty of swindling customers yet again
How many times dies this company have to rip customers like you off before they lose your love.
You're doing a good job of dodging the question. Such a good job, trolls would be impressed!
Who were the data plan contracts between?
Who were the data plan contracts between?
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You're doing a good job of dodging the question. Such a good job, it's pretty close to trolling.
Who were the data plan contracts between?”
“You're doing a good job of dodging the question. Such a good job, it's pretty close to trolling.
Who were the data plan contracts between?”
Apple will have had a hand in the charging of the contracts. Do apple or did they not take a chunk of revenue for the iphones etc?
If this is the case then this is why apple are coughing up as well. Nothing to do with goodwill!!
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Apple will have had a hand in the charging of the contracts. Do apple or did they not take a chunk of revenue for the iphones etc?
If this is the case then this is why apple are coughing up as well. Nothing to do with goodwill!!”
“Apple will have had a hand in the charging of the contracts. Do apple or did they not take a chunk of revenue for the iphones etc?
If this is the case then this is why apple are coughing up as well. Nothing to do with goodwill!!”
Who were the named parties on the data plan contracts? Saying that Apple will have had a hand in their charging is a bit wooly sounding. Not to mention that they would have presumably wanted AT&T to offer unlimited data, as that would be a better incentive for people to buy iPads.
In which case, what's your theory for Apple wanting them to drop the unlimited data thing? You think Apple thought about how to increase iPad sales, and came up with the idea of scrapping unlimited data plans? Doesn't quite add up I don't think.
I've never thought about it too much, but I always assumed network providers buy phones from the manufacturers, and then set plan prices independently of the manufacturer. So I'd have thought the money would have changed hands between Apple and AT&T independently of changing hands between AT&T and their customers.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“You're doing a good job of dodging the question. Such a good job, trolls would be impressed!
Who were the data plan contracts between?”
“You're doing a good job of dodging the question. Such a good job, trolls would be impressed!
Who were the data plan contracts between?”
Who cares I'm only interested in the law and who's liable which clearly is apple yet again, another disgrace for this company ... shame on them and you for yet again excusing this vile behaviour.
Originally Posted by swordman:
“Who cares I'm only interested in the law and who's liable which clearly is apple yet again, another disgrace for this company ... shame on them and you for yet again excusing this vile behaviour.”
“Who cares I'm only interested in the law and who's liable which clearly is apple yet again, another disgrace for this company ... shame on them and you for yet again excusing this vile behaviour.”
That about sums you up really - who cares about the devil in the detail as long as you can use something to have a go at Apple, eh? Only interested in the law my arse. Do you really have no idea how transparent you are?
Yep no interest in any form of slimy excuse making just justice for the customer against these shocking bait and switch tactics that yet again try to fleece loyal customers.
I let others make their weasely excuses for these thieving companies time after time boooooooooo shame
I let others make their weasely excuses for these thieving companies time after time boooooooooo shame
I may indeed celebrate to see this criminal organisation brought down yet again and exposed for what it is, good idea
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Yes, I get that - the injunction will be overturned.
As far as I can tell, that just gets Google off the hook, rather than land Apple in legal trouble.
Or am I missing something here?”
“Yes, I get that - the injunction will be overturned.
As far as I can tell, that just gets Google off the hook, rather than land Apple in legal trouble.
Or am I missing something here?”
Indeed you are! Apples unfounded accusations have backfired on them. Trying to ban products in attempt to kill the competition will mean they will have to pay legal fees. Pocket money to Apple no doubt.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“Who were the named parties on the data plan contracts? Saying that Apple will have had a hand in their charging is a bit wooly sounding. Not to mention that they would have presumably wanted AT&T to offer unlimited data, as that would be a better incentive for people to buy iPads.
In which case, what's your theory for Apple wanting them to drop the unlimited data thing? You think Apple thought about how to increase iPad sales, and came up with the idea of scrapping unlimited data plans? Doesn't quite add up I don't think.
I've never thought about it too much, but I always assumed network providers buy phones from the manufacturers, and then set plan prices independently of the manufacturer. So I'd have thought the money would have changed hands between Apple and AT&T independently of changing hands between AT&T and their customers.”
“Who were the named parties on the data plan contracts? Saying that Apple will have had a hand in their charging is a bit wooly sounding. Not to mention that they would have presumably wanted AT&T to offer unlimited data, as that would be a better incentive for people to buy iPads.
In which case, what's your theory for Apple wanting them to drop the unlimited data thing? You think Apple thought about how to increase iPad sales, and came up with the idea of scrapping unlimited data plans? Doesn't quite add up I don't think.
I've never thought about it too much, but I always assumed network providers buy phones from the manufacturers, and then set plan prices independently of the manufacturer. So I'd have thought the money would have changed hands between Apple and AT&T independently of changing hands between AT&T and their customers.”
Why does it matter?
Apple must have done something wrong to have to stump up.
Can you not just accept that instead of using every brain cell you have in order to find that one little thing that may exhonerate apple?
Can you not just accept apple are NOT the squeaky clean and superb company you seem to think they are, and in fact they are a sleazy company who deliberately try to kill competition, use cheap labour and (now don't let this upset you too much..) don't give a rats arse about you whatsoever...
Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“Indeed you are! Apples unfounded accusations have backfired on them. Trying to ban products in attempt to kill the competition will mean they will have to pay legal fees. Pocket money to Apple no doubt.”
“Indeed you are! Apples unfounded accusations have backfired on them. Trying to ban products in attempt to kill the competition will mean they will have to pay legal fees. Pocket money to Apple no doubt.”
To be fair, there's a bit of a peculiarity of the system here. The patent was ruled invalid not because someone else had used the system before them, but because there was prior art in the form of them demonstrating it before the patent was granted.
Originally Posted by IslandNiles:
“To be fair, there's a bit of a peculiarity of the system here. The patent was ruled invalid not because someone else had used the system before them, but because there was prior art in the form of them demonstrating it before the patent was granted.”
“To be fair, there's a bit of a peculiarity of the system here. The patent was ruled invalid not because someone else had used the system before them, but because there was prior art in the form of them demonstrating it before the patent was granted.”
Which is something every company plays on.
I'm sure apple have done it in the past have they not?
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Which is something every company plays on.
I'm sure apple have done it in the past have they not?”
“Which is something every company plays on.
I'm sure apple have done it in the past have they not?”
How do you mean? I'm not defending or castigating Apple. I just find it kind of amusing in a way that their patent was invalidated by their own demo of the feature, rather than because a rival company had already used it.
Originally Posted by Everything Goes:
“Indeed you are! Apples unfounded accusations have backfired on them. Trying to ban products in attempt to kill the competition will mean they will have to pay legal fees. Pocket money to Apple no doubt.”
“Indeed you are! Apples unfounded accusations have backfired on them. Trying to ban products in attempt to kill the competition will mean they will have to pay legal fees. Pocket money to Apple no doubt.”
What was the unfounded accusation?
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the whole patent thing, I thought the claim was that Google copied the bounce effect?
The fact that Apple publicly demoed the effect before it was supposed to have been copied doesn't render that accusation unfounded. It just means that because it then became prior art the claim was no protected by the patent. In Germany at least - it was still covered in the US where the patent rules are different, and things are covered up to 12 months before the date of the patent.
That is my understanding, unless I've missed anything?
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Why does it matter?
Apple must have done something wrong to have to stump up.
Can you not just accept that instead of using every brain cell you have in order to find that one little thing that may exhonerate apple?
Can you not just accept apple are NOT the squeaky clean and superb company you seem to think they are, and in fact they are a sleazy company who deliberately try to kill competition, use cheap labour and (now don't let this upset you too much..) don't give a rats arse about you whatsoever...”
“Why does it matter?
Apple must have done something wrong to have to stump up.
Can you not just accept that instead of using every brain cell you have in order to find that one little thing that may exhonerate apple?
Can you not just accept apple are NOT the squeaky clean and superb company you seem to think they are, and in fact they are a sleazy company who deliberately try to kill competition, use cheap labour and (now don't let this upset you too much..) don't give a rats arse about you whatsoever...”
The fact that the contracts in question were between AT&T and the customer, rather than between Apple and the customer is not "one little thing". Nor is the fact that it AT&T that changed the contracts. Both are fairly major factors of the case.
And no, I really haven't had to use every brain cell I have to realise that.
As far as I can tell, their guilt was by association, with the cross promotion of AT&Ts data plans for the iPad.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“The fact that the contracts in question were between AT&T and the customer, rather than between Apple and the customer is not "one little thing". Nor is the fact that it AT&T that changed the contracts. Both are fairly major factors of the case.
And no, I really haven't had to use every brain cell I have to realise that.
As far as I can tell, their guilt was by association, with the cross promotion of AT&Ts data plans for the iPad.”
“The fact that the contracts in question were between AT&T and the customer, rather than between Apple and the customer is not "one little thing". Nor is the fact that it AT&T that changed the contracts. Both are fairly major factors of the case.
And no, I really haven't had to use every brain cell I have to realise that.
As far as I can tell, their guilt was by association, with the cross promotion of AT&Ts data plans for the iPad.”
As far as you can tell?
Which means as always you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about again.
See this is what irritates people on here about you. Apple get found with their pants down for whatever reason and you do anything to defend them. It's pathetic.
Thats the difference between us. If i see a company, any company doing stupid things i will call them for what they are. You will to any company other than apple.
Originally Posted by IslandNiles:
“How do you mean? I'm not defending or castigating Apple. I just find it kind of amusing in a way that their patent was invalidated by their own demo of the feature, rather than because a rival company had already used it.”
“How do you mean? I'm not defending or castigating Apple. I just find it kind of amusing in a way that their patent was invalidated by their own demo of the feature, rather than because a rival company had already used it.”
I'm not sure to be honest thats why i was asking!!! I just seem to remember apple getting something granted based on something that wasn't patented before then they pinched it.
Slide to unlock it may have been.
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“As far as you can tell?
Which means as always you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about again.
See this is what irritates people on here about you. Apple get found with their pants down for whatever reason and you do anything to defend them. It's pathetic.
Thats the difference between us. If i see a company, any company doing stupid things i will call them for what they are. You will to any company other than apple.”
“As far as you can tell?
Which means as always you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about again.
See this is what irritates people on here about you. Apple get found with their pants down for whatever reason and you do anything to defend them. It's pathetic.
Thats the difference between us. If i see a company, any company doing stupid things i will call them for what they are. You will to any company other than apple.”
No - not as in "I have absolutely no idea".
As in I'm pretty certain, based on the available information, without being 100% certain. Because that, to the best of my knowledge is what normally happens. That is not "having absolutely no idea".
This is what irritates me about you and others. All I'm doing is applying a bit of perspective. Looking at the devil in the detail, or adding a little perspective is completely different to defending them. In this case it seems clear that AT&T are the main guilty party out of the two.
I don't say that out of blind defence of Apple, I say it for the perfectly good reason that the contracts would have been between AT&T and their customers. You can huff and puff all you like, but unless for some peculiar reason that is not the case, then that is a fundamental differentiating factor between Apple and AT&T in this case.
I assume this is why the cost to AT&T is $240 per customer compared to $40 for Apple.
How about instead of just wanging on about how I have no idea, you tell me what part I have wrong then?
Let's start with the contracts were between. Who would they have been between?
And who changed the contracts?
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“No - not as in "I have absolutely no idea".
As in I'm pretty certain, based on the available information, without being 100% certain. Because that, to the best of my knowledge is what normally happens. That is not "having absolutely no idea".
This is what irritates me about you and others. All I'm doing is applying a bit of perspective. Looking at the devil in the detail, or adding a little perspective is completely different to defending them. In this case it seems clear that AT&T are the main guilty party out of the two.
I don't say that out of blind defence of Apple, I say it for the perfectly good reason that the contracts would have been between AT&T and their customers. You can huff and puff all you like, but unless for some peculiar reason that is not the case, then that is a fundamental differentiating factor between Apple and AT&T in this case.
I assume this is why the cost to AT&T is $240 per customer compared to $40 for Apple.
How about instead of just wanging on about how I have no idea, you tell me what part I have wrong then?
Let's start with the contracts were between. Who would they have been between?
And who changed the contracts?”
“No - not as in "I have absolutely no idea".
As in I'm pretty certain, based on the available information, without being 100% certain. Because that, to the best of my knowledge is what normally happens. That is not "having absolutely no idea".
This is what irritates me about you and others. All I'm doing is applying a bit of perspective. Looking at the devil in the detail, or adding a little perspective is completely different to defending them. In this case it seems clear that AT&T are the main guilty party out of the two.
I don't say that out of blind defence of Apple, I say it for the perfectly good reason that the contracts would have been between AT&T and their customers. You can huff and puff all you like, but unless for some peculiar reason that is not the case, then that is a fundamental differentiating factor between Apple and AT&T in this case.
I assume this is why the cost to AT&T is $240 per customer compared to $40 for Apple.
How about instead of just wanging on about how I have no idea, you tell me what part I have wrong then?
Let's start with the contracts were between. Who would they have been between?
And who changed the contracts?”
Ah right ok then.
Again you know best. You better hop on over and let them know your findings so they can save a shit load of money!
Man your good!!
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“Ah right ok then.
Again you know best. You better hop over over and let them know your findings so they can save a shit load of money!
Man your good!!”
“Ah right ok then.
Again you know best. You better hop over over and let them know your findings so they can save a shit load of money!
Man your good!!
”
And while we're on the subject of irritating, this is another one.
Rather than dispute what I'm saying, or make any attempt to have a civil discussion, you trot out sarcastic crap like that.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of being rude!
Saying that the contracts would have been between AT&T is almost certainly true, and is an entirely relevant factor. So your sarcasm kinda falls a bit flat.
Originally Posted by calico_pie:
“And while we're on the subject of irritating, this is another one.
Rather than dispute what I'm saying, or make any attempt to have a civil discussion, you trot out sarcastic crap like that.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of being rude!
Saying that the contracts would have been between AT&T is almost certainly true, and is an entirely relevant factor. So your sarcasm kinda falls a bit flat.”
“And while we're on the subject of irritating, this is another one.
Rather than dispute what I'm saying, or make any attempt to have a civil discussion, you trot out sarcastic crap like that.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of being rude!
Saying that the contracts would have been between AT&T is almost certainly true, and is an entirely relevant factor. So your sarcasm kinda falls a bit flat.”
Yeah well, to be honest its a trend with everyone doing that to you these days isn't it?
What is falling flat is you. You are boring to debate with. You are predictable as hell and just come out with the same nonsense over and over. You refuse to see fault with apple, always think you are correct and won't see anyone elses side of the argument. Apple lost a case colluding with book publishers. You went out your way for weeks to blame amazon for apple idiocy!! Its was brilliant!!
And here we are again, apple getting caught with its drawers down and you still defend them like you know better than the people actually involved in the case!!
People have disputed this with you but again, you can't see it can you?
Even silly things like in another thread you absolutely chastised me for saying 'christ sake' or something claiming i was rude etc etc for apparently using it in frustration.... You have now done the exact same thing and tried to weasel out of it saying it was all about context!! You couldn't make it up!
You are a wind up merchant. Simple as that. I accept when I'm wrong and have done many many times on here. I also see other sides of debates. You don't.
You can't help yourself can you?
You're just wanging on about how I must know better yaddy yaddy without actually saying what you are disagreeing with.
Presumably because there isn't anything to disagree with.
And I'd be pretty sure if we looked back at that other thread, "absolutely chastised" would turn out to be a complete exaggeration.
You mention the other side of debates. So if one side of the debate is "the contracts were AT&T contracts" what is the other side of that debate?
As far as I can tell the other side "so what?".
What actually is it that I'm supposed to think I know better than the people involved in the case?
Do the people involved in the case not know that they were AT&T contracts?
Do the people involved in the case not know that it was AT&T that changed the contracts?
Help me out here, by all means.
You're just wanging on about how I must know better yaddy yaddy without actually saying what you are disagreeing with.
Presumably because there isn't anything to disagree with.
And I'd be pretty sure if we looked back at that other thread, "absolutely chastised" would turn out to be a complete exaggeration.
You mention the other side of debates. So if one side of the debate is "the contracts were AT&T contracts" what is the other side of that debate?
As far as I can tell the other side "so what?".
What actually is it that I'm supposed to think I know better than the people involved in the case?
Do the people involved in the case not know that they were AT&T contracts?
Do the people involved in the case not know that it was AT&T that changed the contracts?
Help me out here, by all means.
2 of 3
