Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Tankwatch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rnsmth who wrote (15811)	1/23/2012 9:54:40 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 32692

Apple blew $100 million on its HTC lawsuit, and all it got was this lousy post Discuss [1] 23 JANUARY 2012 BY MICHAEL CRIDER androidcommunity.com Apple hates Android. With a passion. It hates Android as much as superfluous buttons and UI elements without gentle gradients. And if a rumor running around the legal circles of the tech industry can be believed, it hates Android enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees with barely anything to show for it. According to Newsweek’s Dan Lyons, Apple spent around $100 million dollars in its latest design patent suit against HTC. The result? HTC designed around the patents, leaving Apple with a big bill and a feeling of superiority. Not that they didn’t have that already. When Apple petitioned the International Trade Commission to grant an injunction against HTC’s devices , it came back with its ruling in December, stating that the mechanism that allows phone numbers to be automatically highlighted and sent to the dialer app in Android violates Apple’s software patent. Facing a possible import ban, HTC simply disabled the feature (the only major function that Apple was able to successfully sue for) to comply with the ruling. After a series of software updates, probably costing HTC much less than its own legal defense fees, they’re good to go. Will this zero-sum outcome deter apple from further legal skulduggery? Yeah, right. Just last week they his Samsung with a lawsuit based on the slide-to-unlock feature on the Galaxy Nexus, with a call for a ban on ten more devices in Germany. Despite being defeated in similar lawsuits in Australia and the US, and being designed around on the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 lawsuit in Deutschland, Apple seems intent on crying foul to any court that will hear them. Keep it up, Cupertino – surely your rabid userbase will forgive your incredible profit margins, outsourced labor force and engineered obsolescence for another year or so. [ via BGR]

To: rnsmth who wrote (15811)	1/24/2012 8:10:22 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32692

BREAKING...Apple loses Dutch Samsung tablet ban bid slashgear.com Chris Davies, Jan 24th 2012 Discuss [2] Apple‘s bid to have sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked in the Netherlands has failed today, with a Dutch appeals court dismissing Apple’s claims of IP infringement by the Android tablet. The ruling – released in Dutch - found that while Apple’s tablet design patent 000181607 is still valid, prior art including HP Compaq’s tc1000 and the 1994 Knight Ridder concept meant the Cupertino company’s design rights are very narrow. In fact, the Dutch court – and the US court which ruled on Apple’s designs last year – took into account a much larger number of possible prior art examples than the German Dusseldorf court. In that jurisdiction, Apple’s design protection was deemed to be “medium-range or broad” FOSS Patents reports, after only two prior art examples were cited. “Following the statement from Apple that its model attractive ‘minimalistic’ or ‘tight’ shape, is judge noted that “minimalist” design basically means that the contours are followed as defined by technology and ergonomics of the device are dictated and in determining the scope of this model, technical or other practical / ergonomic elements be disregarded. Considered further given that the backs and sides of the Galaxy Tabs 10.1v and 10.1 differ from those of the Apple model, the judge concluded that the Samsung tablet a different overall impression than that model, so there is no of breach” Dutch court documentation (machine-translated) Conversely, however, while at least two pieces of prior art were identified for each key design element registered by Apple, none of the examples Samsung’s legal team could muster demonstrated all of them. That meant Apple escaped having its design rights overturned completely. The ruling could have implications in Dusseldorf next month, where Apple is set to go up against Samsung once more in search of an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, the customized iteration of the slate created to work around a previous injunction.