|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 02:45 AM EST |
Going back to selling devices, my significant other was wondering if I wanted
the iPad 4. It looks pretty, but my Xoom does everything that the iPad4 does,
so why buy the iPad?
Patents or no patents, desirable features on one mobile device will be
replicated on other devices, once somebody's itch needs scratching.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 03:52 AM EST |
After all - when my primary purpose is to have full control over the software
on my phone:
proprietary phones simply don't offer that
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 07:04 AM EST |
"an invention that allows a mobile phone to make mobile
phone calls would warrant injunctive relief"
Would it?
By that argument, any patent troll - I'm sorry, non-practicing entity - could
wave a handful of core technology patents at Apple and shut them down.
Injunctive relief should be entirely dependent on the harm (or lack of it) to
the plaintiff, not the significance of the claimed patent to their product.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 03:43 PM EST |
I would think it's obvious that Apple is
arguing they should have a monopoly when
they say that. If
other good phones are sold on the market,
it will interfere with their campaign to
implant the idea that "smartphone = iPhone"
or "tablet = iPad" in the market, and
network effects will make their
competitors' devices more attractive (as
more software is written for them, users
sign up for their services, users become
accustomed to their interfaces, etc).
Money can't fix this problem; in order for
Apple to win, everyone else has to lose.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
