The Issue With Apple...

[C0RR0SIVE]

Kodak filed for bankruptcy, if you have no money, it can't be forced from you. Nothing the courts can do in the end.

Also, those "all metal uni-frames" are not all metal, trust me, they snap just like high grade plastics, Dell uses something very similar in Vostro laptops, I dropped mine from about 4 foot high while in school one day, landed on the corner, had a few scratches, and the CD drive died, but the machine resisted, most consumer laptops won't survive such a thing though.

In the end, you are doing nothing more but spending more money than a machine is truly worth. Someone claims that Apple only uses two manufactures. That is VERY wrong in the end. You have audio, video, CPU, motherboard, chassis production companies. FoxxConn handles the chassis and motherboard in most laptops I have ever seen, and does quiet a few of apples laptops. Then you still have the other companies that produce the various parts. They are in every shape and way the same as a high end regular old laptop in what is on the inside in the end. You are paying excess money for looks? Sounds a bit.. Cheap to me.


Also, how the **** does Apple get away with trying to take Kodak to court, when it is Kodak that invented digital cameras, but decided to not market it? If anything, Kodak should be able to screw Apple out the ASS.


"Kodak, the photography pioneer that introduced its $1 Brownie Camera more than a century ago, filed for bankruptcy Jan. 19 after consumers embraced digital cameras, a technology Kodak invented and failed to commercialize."

"Apple argued that the ITC shouldn't investigate the complaint because of the bankruptcy filing and the company's plan to sell its patents and digital camera business."


So, Apple can take Kodak to court, but Kodak can't take Apple to court while Kodak is in Bankruptcy? Sorry, but this is the ONE reason I HATE several corporations, and anyone that supports them.

 

[Oreo]

Sorry, really don't care about Kodak. If they made decent products I would care, but they don't, it's entirely their fault, why should I feel bad for them screwing up. If they made innovative products that were awesome, and they tried their hardest, yet still failed.. well then they would have my full sympathy. But that is not the case.

And with that attitude people are going to hate you too. And apple has you by the balls buddy. haha

There is no reason a billion dollar company has to sue a company that is going bankrupt. There is no reason for it except for greed.

I personally think that all these companies need to quit suing over stupid patents and, idk maybe invent something useful. So much money goes to suing the other guy that could be invested in developing something you can call your own.

Yes, Apple are being stupid. And it is pointless. But as above, I still don't give a crap about Kodak. Yes I feel sorry for employees using their job etc etc. But apart from that, exactly what I said up there ^

I'm a very fair person, I give respect exactley where it is deserved. At the end of the day all these companies being taken to court have broken the law, or they wouldn't be their. If someone breaks the law and finds themselves in deep ****, well tough ****, if you don't like it don't break the law. This applies to people and companies.

If a cop pulled me over for speeding, i'm not going to cry and winge about it and give excuses like other people do on TV. If I don't want to be fined, I shouldn't of sped. If Kodak didn't want too be taken to court, they shouldn't of infringed patents.

I don't care who the company is, i'm not just sucking up to Apple. If apple infringed loads of patents like they obviously have then they deserve everything they get, for my own personal benefit ofcourse I hope they win court battles etc, because I like their products. But at the same time if they loose then that is their fault and they deserve it.

 

[overlord20]

So many innocent people get taken to court over supposed infringed patents. Your naive if you think that every person or company that is taken to court broke the law or deserves to be there.

 

[nickmannawar]

So many innocent people get taken to court over supposed infringed patents. Your naive if you think that every person or company that is taken to court broke the law or deserves to be there.

It's all a food chain. Fair or not, It runs the business economy.

 

[Oreo]

So many innocent people get taken to court over supposed infringed patents. Your naive if you think that every person or company that is taken to court broke the law or deserves to be there.

Of course. But most of these patents cases have some validity behind them.

 

[I_Am_Skip]

Yea, and the times there is validity behind them is few and far between. There is a point between suing for genuine reasons, and suing because you are scarred of the other companies product...

 

[overlord20]

Yea, and the times there is validity behind them is few and far between. There is a point between suing for genuine reasons, and suing because you are scarred of the other companies product...

Or suing because you have a bunch of bored attorneys.

 

[Jayce]

So many innocent people get taken to court over supposed infringed patents. Your naive if you think that every person or company that is taken to court broke the law or deserves to be there.

Yea, and the times there is validity behind them is few and far between. There is a point between suing for genuine reasons, and suing because you are scarred of the other companies product...

Above quotes are too true. Love 'em or hate 'em, at the very least it's still ridiculous.

 

[Nitestick]

Saying thats like patenting the wheel is wrong, thats going along the line of patenting an industry standard. Something that every smartphone is going to have or need. Patenting the wheel is much more akin to patenting a touch keyboard. Every smartphone is going to need a touch keyboard. No smartphone needs a slide to unlock feature, thats just a superficial design choice. It's only obvious because that is all we've ever known since the modern smartphone 'boom' when the iphone was released.

PROTIP: There's something called prior art: Slide To Unlock Patented By Apple Despite Prior Art

Apple should not have been granted the patent. There's also the issue that Apok mentioned which is that in order for an idea to be patentable it can't be derivative/intuitive i.e. it shouldn't be a simple engineering solution that is logically arrived at as a solution to an obvious problem. Slide to unlock, emulating the physical action of sliding a door bolt IS an obvious solution. Regarding my earlier comment on the capacitive touch screen, I didn't say they were the first however I believe the popularised it's use and ever since there has been a marked decline in resistive screens.