Apple's Legal Goliath Struck Down by Spanish Tablet Maker

[RabidFace]

I just have no more words for Apple anymore.

I would go on a rant about how they are trying to shove everyone out of the technological world with their over-priced/under-powered products and flat out lying to people (brainwashing) why you need the latest device from them, but I will not.

One thing I will say, THEY ARE TRYING TO PATENT A FREAKN' RECTANGLE!!!

It's a great day for the small guy though. Karma is a bitch and I hope that Apple gets what is rightly coming to them with all the s**t they have pulled lately.

 

[internetlad]

apparently spanish judges are the only ones that can't be bribed.

 

[alidan]

i love spanish courts.

they are the best ones with not siding with big businesses, look up the ds and supercard. it has legitimate uses, but has been banned most places, but spain sold nintendo to screw off a while back.

nintendo was almost as bad back in the day as apple is now, by getting it to be a crime in japan to rent games in any form to people, even if they are perks you get when renting a hotel room.

 

[dalethepcman]

[citation][nom]getreal[/nom]Pretty sure it is on a 4 week backorder for the iphone 4s. Meanwhile, vendors have to GIVE Samsung phones away, because nobody wants them![/citation]

Yes i'm sure the 27 million smartphones (plus who knows how many stupid phones) that Samsung distributed in the last 3 months were all given away for free. They are the #1 phone maker in the world because they don't know how to do anything except copy Apple.

The real reason Apple wants injunctions against Samsung is because Samsung has a superior product that cost's less. It was only a matter of time before they fell, and I don't think strapping an Apple TV to a regular TV, and calling it iTV will do much to save them.

 

[weaselsmasher]

Unless, of course, Nuevas bought a judge, or the judge was being a nationalist.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]rabidface[/nom]Karma is a bitch and I hope that Apple gets what is rightly coming to them with all the s**t they have pulled lately.[/citation]

The former CEO surely got a taste of karma, having the workers who produced the company's wealth die due to the working conditions in the factories while stockpiling billion after billion in the bank while claiming a few dollars raise per product was out of the question!

 

[house70]

" an injunction against Nuevas Tecnologias have have dismissed commercial and criminal charges brought against them by apple"
Looks like the OP was discombobulated by the news... Sorry, buddy, but Apple took it on the chin this time...

 

[Guest]

bribed? the truth is much darker. Apple has remotely turned on the camera on their devices, catch several judges in their indiscrete moment, upload them to HQ, and use them as leverage to sway the judges' opinions.

 

[eddieroolz]

Ouch. Good for N.T.

 

[getreal]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]The real reason Apple wants injunctions against Samsung is because Samsung has a superior product that cost's less.[/citation]

I appreciate your rebuttal and valid discussion (non-flame), but let's stay on topic here and be realistic. Apple is not suing because it is afraid of competition; Samsung shamelessly made a replica of the iPhone from the packaging to the icons and UI and called it its own. Regardless, Apple is still having no problems selling out of its phones, so the lawsuits are merely to discourage more blatant copying.

 

[drwho1]

I don't like tablets.... but I would even buy one this Spanish tablets...
just to stick it to Apple.

 

[neoverdugo]

Serves you right R(otten)-apple!!! At the end of the day you're nothing more than a thief and a bully. But when you get the spank in the ass you act like the victim.

 

[joe nate]

[citation][nom]getreal[/nom]Apple is not suing because it is afraid of competition; Samsung shamelessly made a replica of the iPhone from the packaging to the icons and UI and called it its own. Regardless, Apple is still having no problems selling out of its phones, so the lawsuits are merely to discourage more blatant copying.[/citation]

"the lawsuits are merely to discourage more blatant copying" This an extremely bias statement. Downplaying what Apple is doing, and overselling what Samsung is doing? Don't you think you chose your words a little too well there? Because if what you said was really true you wouldn't have to color it by adding words like "merely" and "blatant."

Apple is doing what every big company is doing these days filing lawsuits to little guys on patent infringements whether or not they apply - that costs money to defend against, and a little guy like this spanish company who isn't even copying loses money because they have to hire lawyers (or more lawyers) get their shipments halted and cut to where they cannot recoup their costs - and if the company is small enough and doesn't get to sell their product (which is their means of income) that was legally created, but stopped due to legal injunctions that take multiple months or years to prove you legally created the product because Apple submitted a false claim that they copied Apple. But the damage is done. The little guy goes out of business because he doesn't have the money to float through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo to the end. This is why Apple is getting an anti-competitive lawsuit against it. It's purely an anti-competitive move by Apple. Prevent anyone from entering the market by making sure they never make it into the market through tricks with the legal system. I'm sure if this isn't already illegal in some places, there will be new laws over the next few years to heavily discourage this sort of legal-bullying smaller companies.

Tablets existed MULTIPLE YEARS before Apple (I think the earliest was around 2000). They just didn't take off for many reasons (Some key points were that they weren't the right time because capacitive touch screens were not inexpensive enough to make a reasonable product, battery life, overall power and size were less appealing, and wifi was significantly less common). Apple was just the first company to successfully make a profit out of it. They did not innovate. In a way, they copied. Apple takes other people's ideas and says "Hey, customers, look at this! shiny! New! With the letter "i" before it! BUY IT!"

 

[Guest]

Shove it up your a@# apple. Tired of Apple's oppression.

 

[palladin9479]

I'm just waiting for Apple to attempt to block the sale of Samsung tables in South Korea.

Good for Spain, now lets spread this to the rest of the UK and the world. Let the antitrust lawsuits begin.

 

[drapacioli]

[citation][nom]getreal[/nom]Pretty sure it is on a 4 week backorder for the iphone 4s. Meanwhile, vendors have to GIVE Samsung phones away, because nobody wants them![/citation]

Several of there phones are free after subsidies by the carriers, meaning the carriers pay for the phone. Samsung doesn't give away shit for free, US carriers do, but don't worry, it's justified in their ridiculous monthly pricing, which premium phone buyers actually have to pay more for anyway. Apple's starting to do the same thing all carriers do: they sell their top phones for at least $200 subsidized, and then when demand drops they lower the price until it is eventually free, which is when they simply stop making the phone and run through what's left of their inventory.

Samsung sold millions of Galaxy S units at full no-contract price before they were even available in the US, so don't say they have to give away their phones. They just have budget options that cost almost nothing to produce, therefore with subsidies they end up being free to US customers on a contract. And same with the SII, it's off contract price is equivalent to $500, and they have sold over 30 million globally since launch.

 

[drapacioli]

I'm sorry, I read the article wrong, Samsung has sold over 30 million S and SII phones since launch: http://an.droid-life.com/2011/10/24/samsung-galaxy-s-and-sii-sales-hit-30-million-globally/

 

[palladin9479]

[citation][nom]drapacioli[/nom]Several of there phones are free after subsidies by the carriers, meaning the carriers pay for the phone. Samsung doesn't give away shit for free, US carriers do, but don't worry, it's justified in their ridiculous monthly pricing, which premium phone buyers actually have to pay more for anyway. Apple's starting to do the same thing all carriers do: they sell their top phones for at least $200 subsidized, and then when demand drops they lower the price until it is eventually free, which is when they simply stop making the phone and run through what's left of their inventory. Samsung sold millions of Galaxy S units at full no-contract price before they were even available in the US, so don't say they have to give away their phones. They just have budget options that cost almost nothing to produce, therefore with subsidies they end up being free to US customers on a contract. And same with the SII, it's off contract price is equivalent to $500, and they have sold over 30 million globally since launch.[/citation]

Actually they just passed a law over here in South Korea that makes this practice illegal. You can no longer hide the cost of a phone in the subscription plan. You must now purchase the phone as a separate item then the service. Next up their working on making it illegal to lock phones to carriers.

 

[Guest]

Only Apple product I have is iPod from 2004 and seeing what Apple has turned into I'm sorry I ever bought anything from them.

 

[de5_Roy]

viva nuevas technologias!
er... now apple will sue them again claiming to patent a tablet called quart de poblet.
juat antitrust apple and cut off the ios division from the mac division. >: D