Apple under fire
Summary: Criticism of Apple’s case against Samsung amid reports that Samsung is winning the mobile race
THE hostility from pseudo-underdog Apple has ranged from deception to litigation. As Apple drops down the ranks while Android moves up (in tablets, not just phones) we clearly see the cult getting ever more miserable and aggressive. As another new article puts it:
In the second quarter of 2012, Samsung shipped 52.1 million smartphones, just over double the number shipped by Apple — that is, 26 million, Juniper estimated.
Samsung has also doubled its lead over Apple quarter-on-quarter, the firm said, thanks to its flagship Galaxy S3. That device alone posted sales of 10 million in June.
A Californian federal judge has sanctioned Samsung for destroying evidence which makes up part of a case it’s fighting against Apple over patent infringement. Naughty, Samsung.
What about all the nasty moves of Apple in the courtroom, e.g. manipulation of photos of Samsung devices? And in any event, Samsung thinks it’s irrelevant on if they copied Apple because Apple copied Sony. Apple also copied LG.
One other report speaks of Qualcomm’s relevance to this case:
Samsung signed an agreement with Qualcomm not to sue the chip maker or its customers for using Samsung’s 3G patents, but this agreement was called off when Apple took Samsung to court over the Galaxy Tab, Samsung admitted in the Australian Federal Court this morning.
The Federal Court today commenced the long-awaited case between Apple and Samsung over alleged patent infringements by the two companies. The court began hearing Samsung’s counter-claim against Apple — that the company infringed on three standards-essential 3G patents held by Samsung in the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPad 2.
Pamela Jones elaborates and clarifies: “As Samsung and Apple have been fighting over patents from one end of the earth to the other, most of the coverage, with few exceptions, seems to present Apple’s point of view. [Example A, Example B, Example 3, Example 4, and Example 5.] We know how much money Apple is asking for, we know it’s claiming treble damages for willfulness, we know it thinks FRAND patents are not deserving of injunction enforcement, and that Samsung is asking too much money for them.
“But now that we have the redacted trial briefs from the parties, I thought you’d like to see Samsung’s side. Litigation has two sides, two stories, not just one.”
Watch the anti-Android FUD from Microsoft booster Lance Whitney. He quotes Microsoft Florian, who is paid by Microsoft, to harm Samsung’s position in this case, using the "billions" FUD that Jones debunked the other day (it was about another case).
Stephen Shankland spoke to Jonathan Schwartz, the last CEO of Sun, about Android. This interview was not conducted for yet more anti-Android FUD but rather the very opposite. To quote the summary: “Oracle could have innovated with Java instead of litigated, says CareZone co-founder and Sun’s former CEO.” Handy report.
NVIDIA, one of the companies looking to make a fortune from Android (with Tegra), is meanwhile letting a patent go mad:
An ex-NVIDIA engineer that had a patent concerning high compression rate texture mapping attempted to attack an open-source project for supposedly violating this patent related to software graphics texture compression. The open-source software in question is Crunch and it’s written by a Valve Software developer.
Leading up to learning about the Valve Linux SIGGRAPH presentation, a Phoronix reader tipped me off that the presenter, Rich Geldreich of Valve, faced a recent patent battle with a former NVIDIA developer.
Notice how much harm software patents in general are causing Linux. We must fight them ferociously. This is the main factor which will determine whether Free software triumphs. In an imminent interview with Stallman we shall discuss the subject. █
“The European Patent Office is an executive organisation, it deals especially with patent applicants, as such, its view of the world may be biased. As an executive organisation, its interpretative powers are very limited. The European Patent Convention excludes computer programs, it is outside the EPO’s power to change this.”