decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not so!!! | 353 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not so!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 02:43 AM EDT
Yes... VZ did ship some phones that way, with BING Search Locked to
the phone and that was even on first out of box boot!
http://www.androidguys.com/2010/09/08/verizon-locks-bing-search-
option-fascinate-restricts/

Even if you factory reset it, Bing and other garbage was there. It
was an asinine attempt to control the user experience the moment
you opened the box for Verizon's attempt to show whose boss. Lame
attempt at that.

So you'd think that would indemnify Samsung from any
responsibility. In this case the Carriers should be the ones being
sued here. But apparently it doesn't work that way in our court
system. Even though Android isn't Android after the Carriers get
through with it. But why are Carriers allowed to rip the guts out
of Android and NOT Apple's iOS? So that's a point in T-Mobile and
Sprint's favor over both AT&T and Verizon! ....they at least don't
do it to the extent that these two do here in this country!!!

But still naturally if you buy your phone from a Sprint Brick n
Mortar Store or Best Buy, they normally always activate it for you
right there on the spot and the Google Search Widget is there on a
Home Screen for you out of an already opened box. So that still
denies you the true out of box experience you went through with
your devices, apparently. Sprint or Best Buy stores? ...you'll most
always have the Search Widget on the screen by default then.

btw... I searched for Sprint Epic 4G Touch fresh out of box. Found
none with them being all factory sealed. Every video wasn't a true
UNBOXING! and although they didn't have less home screens it was
obvious they had been pre-activated or altered to take away what
Samsung says, means they had been altered. Obviously if it has less
Home Screens.... then someone took them off on Apple's team!

Everyday this Judge makes another decisions that throws this case
further into doubt, that Samsung is getting a fair trial. Whether
that's an Apple set up or not? Well I just don't know, so I'll shut
up. I just think Judge Koh is in over her head and has lost control
of both plaintive and defense's attorneys! ...so hey, just give
Apple the win this is headed for, so we can get on with the appeal!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )