
#BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban - saket123
https://plus.google.com/s/%23BoycottApple/posts
======
shawnee_
Something about Koh's overwhelming bias for Apple seems really suspicious.
It's one thing to preeminently ban sales of product A for reason X, but to
also ban sales of product B for reason Y where products A and B have the same
parent, and where reasons X and Y are completely unrelated? Something is wrong
with this picture.

What else could be going on? Maybe I have a cynical view of humanity, but I
spent a few minutes digging to see if I could find anything on requirements
for District Judges to release tax returns (as they are essentially public
officials, right?). Couldn't find anything on that, but generic salary data is
available: <http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/js_3.html>

$175K is probably rather low when you're used to working in the high-stakes
world of patent litigation.

It'll be interesting to investigate this with more depth. ( Another
interesting / related read: [http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-
judges-pay2...](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/27/local/me-judges-pay27)
)

~~~
raganesh
If you are accusing her of bribery, that is a very serious allegation.

Imagine if such a thing happens and is eventually exposed. What a scandal
would it be. I don't think any large company, let alone Apple, would want to
be involved in any such mess.

~~~
mtgx
I don't know about this case, but I think ITC has been suspiciously anti-
Google for the past few patent cases. In almost every single instance they've
ruled in favor of Apple or Microsoft, and against Google.

~~~
greyfade
Setting aside your confirmation bias, I'll point out that Google haven't
themselves brought these patent cases to the ITC in the same number or with
the same force as have Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else. Google has filed
fewer cases with a smaller patent portfolio.

------
boredguy8
Wow that live stream update is a nightmare - I keep trying to read what's
happened and things get pushed down almost immediately. A clickable (or w/e)
"18 new posts" would make it usable.

~~~
shimfish
To save you the trouble, it's a stream of content free fanboyism and witless
photoshoppery. Every single comment would be downvoted to oblivion if it were
posted here.

~~~
Afal
on reddit however...

~~~
mkr-hn
If you actually used Reddit you would notice that most ignorant and outright
trollish comments are downvoted into oblivion. You _see_ a lot more awful
comments, but that's only because Reddit is larger. They're treated the same.

~~~
prezjordan
Not if you make a comment like "iSuck, but I think I am better that everyone"
on r/technology. I wish your description were true everywhere.

~~~
mkr-hn
Comments like that usually come after a long, dumb tree that started out with
good intentions. It happens on HN too. The difference is that I can collapse
those threads on Reddit, or hide the story completely.

~~~
freehunter
Collapsible comments on HN would be awesome. Too often I get deep into a huge
comment thread that has gone off topic and close the tab after I lose interest
and forget what the topic was supposed to be about.

~~~
mkr-hn
The resistance to it probably comes from the belief that it would hasten HN's
decline. Once you can collapse subthreads, what's the motivation to not
contribute to the subthreads?

But Reddit at levels 1-5 is almost indistinguishable from HN at levels 1-5.
The only differences between HN and Reddit are topic diversity, collapsing,
and limiting comment display to the top 100 or 500 comments.

That has me using HN less in recent months. It failed to account for the
inevitable with display tools, so a thread that would be perfectly navigable
on Reddit is unreadable on HN.

------
jrockway
This is really a non-issue. Tech companies sue each other and get import bans
all the time. The victim eventually moves some UI widget three pixels to the
right and the import ban is lifted and life moves on. The only real
consequence of all this is that lawyers on both sides make a lot of money.
Google is not going to stop making Android and Apple is not going to stop
making iOS. Both will just advance more slowly because money is being spent on
lawyering rather than programming.

~~~
jclulow
I think suggesting that nobody is hurt by ridiculous injunctions like this is
a bit disingenuous. Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a
product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not
want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do.

Something else an injuction does is robs a manufacturer of any time-to-market
advantage that they may have had releasing the product when they were actually
trying to do so. Holding sales back by even a month can mean the missing of
critical retail periods throughout the year. I'm not even arguing either way
about the validity of the claims _behind_ the injunction here -- if it turns
out they are in the wrong, then they should certainly pay damages to Apple
based on how much damage that they caused by doing the wrong thing (i.e.
profits from sales).

How much the target of an injunction benefits from being allowed to sell their
product is concrete and measurable. How much Apple benefit by preventing a
competitor from placing a product on the market is, in stark contrast,
essentially unknowable and thus difficult to compensate for if Apple turn out
to be wrong.

~~~
X-Istence
If consumers want the device they can simply purchase an Apple device. If
Google did indeed violate the patents in question the features the user want
are available in Apple's products.

You mention first-mover advantage ... that is exactly what patents are
supposed to grant, you invent something cool, you get a patent on it, and then
YOU get exclusivity on that invention for X years so you can recoup your costs
of R&D.

If company Y owns the patent and company X clones it and sells it for $50
cheaper company Y is now disadvantaged even-though it spent all of the money
researching and developing it in the first place. Apparently the Judge agreed
that company Y is in the right and that company X should no longer be allowed
to sell their widget until the lawsuit is settled.

~~~
przemelek
Nope. It works slightly different, first companies like Motorola, Nokia,
Samsung and others invested billions of dollars in creating telecommunication
standards. Next those companies are forced to license patents for those
technologies to Apple. Apple creates phone which base in 95% on technology
created by those companies, they are adding several features like "slide to
unlock" or "pinch to zoom" and patent it. Samsung, Motorola and others looks
on Apple product and says "OK, so it means that customers want other UI, we
can give them it too", they are participants in OHA which created very similar
to iPhone project of OS for mobile phones (in the same time). So they start to
produce and sell such phones. Now Apple goes to court and pretends that theirs
big "innovation" is so unique that it should let them to block anything
similar to theirs "inventions" (in the same time Apple took notifications
system from Android)... what is the most funny part, Motorola and Samsung must
license to Apple patents needed to build cell phone, but Apple may do not
license theirs patents. This cause that patents for cell phones which costed
billions of dollars are cheap for Apple (but its competitors needed to pay
billions for those), but patents from Apple which costed only money needed for
filling patent applications are impossible to obtain by its competitors.

~~~
brightrhino
Remember we are talking about only the 3G chip in the iPhone. Just that tiny
chip, not the GPS chip, or any other part of the iPhone, and not the whole
chip, just one part of Motorola's patents used to make the 3G standard. So a
tiny, tiny fraction of the functionality of an iPhone.

The patents Motorola is using are called standards-essential, because many
companies got together to create a standard, for example, 3G telephony, they
pool their patents together and promise to license them to any manufacturer
who wants to create a device that uses that standard, in this example, any
cell phone that uses 3G, be that Apple, LG, HTC, RIM, anyone.

Since they have now created what is essentially a monopoly on that technology,
they could force any or all of these companies to pay them exorbitant license
fees because anyone who makes a 3G phone must use these technologies, and
therefore these patents. That does not mean the patents are themselves
valuable.

For instance, Motorola may contribute an encryption patent. There are many
hundreds of other methods of encryption, so that patent is worth very little
by itself, once it is selected for the standard, it is the only method that
can be used to interoperate. If an manufacturer wants to use an encryption
method they invented, they cannot, because their phones won't work with the
cell towers.

Here is where we find the current litigation, Motorola says their patents are
worth 2.25% of the entire value of an iPhone. There may be hundreds of patents
in the 3G standard, if they are all worth 2.25% and there are 300, then the 3G
patents alone represent 300*2.25% of the value of an iPhone, or 675%. So
everything else, all the other ideas, innovations, etc are worth nothing.

This makes no sense, and the courts have said that these patents must be
licensed on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory basis (FRAND). That
means they must license the patents for what they were worth the moment BEFORE
they were added to the standard. in the Motorola-Apple case that might be .05%
of the value of the iPhone. Motorola and Google are using standards-essential
patents as a weapon against Apple to force Apple to either pay exorbitant
rates for the patent, or, more likely, force Apple to allow android to violate
apple's non-standards-essential patents.

Thus Motorola is using a restricted, standards-essential patent in a manner
which is explicitly forbidden by law. Judge Posner is extremely unhappy with
Motorola and Google about this behavior. See the FOSS Patents Blog for more
detail.

It is entirely unlike apple's use of patents, it has never used a FRAND
encumbered patent to sue a competitor.

~~~
saket123
By the same standards , Apple is saying that all the value of Galaxy Nexus is
worth four patent many of whom are contestable and attributable to broken
patent system. As far as I can see apple is saying contextual search done from
many resources is worth $349 per galaxy nexus..but 3g that makes such a search
possible is not worth $12 assuming retail cost of iPhone as $500. The FRAND is
such a easy excuse to hide behind, when you use real technology to make stuff
work and are unwilling to pay for it. Compare it with slide to unlock or
searching multiple databases on a phone. I am pretty sure none of the
technology that Apple 'invented' are being used here. Google came out with
their own ways of making this system work.Apple are welcome to come up with
their own 3G standards if they don't want to pay for it.

------
siglesias
I'm wondering what kind of institutional respect for IP and spirit of
innovation would lead Samsung to whip up this UI?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxYZXjXozc>

Sure, one can argue that Samsung and Apple both look to a common ancestor for
their ideas, but I think Samsung is more insidious than people are willing to
admit here.

~~~
itp
I'm not sure what that has to do with the most recent injunction against the
Samsung Galaxy Nexus. The judge issued the injunction on the strength of U.S.
Patent 8,086,604, which "provides convenient access to items of information
that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary
interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations,
through a number of different techniques". The infringing technology is
specifically called out as Android's Quick Search Box, which has been present
for years.

The Apple patent in question is obvious on its face. Off the top of my head,
Google Desktop Search, which was released a month or so before Apple filed for
the patent, is prior art. Nat Friedman's Dashboard project
(<http://nat.org/dashboard/>) represents significantly more advanced prior art
and predates Apple's patent filing by over a year.

Samsung may be insidious, but that's not the issue at play here. The judge
ruled that Google's Quick Search Box violates an Apple patent that should
never have been issued, and represents a toe hold to go after Android as a
whole. This is a farce.

~~~
siglesias
I don't feel that this lawsuit is specifically over the four patents in
question and only the four patents in question. It's punishment (in the game
theoretical sense) for Samsung's institutional attitude. Obviously the
discourse here has taken on import beyond the purely legal realities and into
a more moral conversation about right and wrong. Morally speaking, I feel that
many of Samsung's design decisions are wrong. This isn't to say that Apple is
totally clean either, but it bears mentioning that the "victim" here has no
problem with seeing how much copying it can get away with, and I see no
problem with its getting punished for it once in a while.

~~~
vibrunazo
That's classic ad hominem 101. "It doesn't matter if what you're doing is
wrong or not. You... you.. you're dirty! And a jew! You should get sued!"

------
chmars
Why is such a trend on Google+ relevant?

As much as I would like to embrace Google+ as a Facebook alternative, Google+
has still a very limited audience – and, of course, a very Android-focus
audience …

EDIT: Downvoting my comment just because it isn't enthusiastic on Google+?
Comm'on!

~~~
msabalau
It is appealing to see a down-voting complaint for an unpopular opinion
related to a comment which dismisses a trend on Google+ being irrelevant
because the network is relatively unpopular.

I doubt the 75 million people who use Google+ consider themselves a "very
limited audience."

Regardless, not a reason for down-voting.

~~~
vacri
I would have thought using a false claim to denigrate something would be a
reason for down-voting.

------
zhoutong
I don't understand why #BoycottSomething should be used for protests.
Boycotting an influential company is extremely hard.

I'm sure that there are more rational ways to protest, instead of trying to
boycott a company that actually delivers some of the best products. No company
is perfect and Apple's case is just a tip of an iceberg in the whole industry.

<http://www.dontmakemesteal.com/> is a good example. We know the movie
industry sometimes uses intellectual property rights against their customers
but there are good ways to fight back without disregarding the merit of the
entire thing.

~~~
pg
What are the other ways to protest? I don't mean that as a rhetorical
question. I'm genuinely curious.

~~~
zhoutong
On a small scale, petitions will work better than a hash tag on a Google-owned
website. The person that made the decision is the judge. So a rational way to
protest is to protest the decision itself.

On a large scale, make something disruptively innovative to fight back.

#BoycottApple may work by alarming and reminding Apple of their unethical act
(to the crowd). But the effect is small because it has nothing to do with
Apple's product quality and customer service. If no one buys Apple products
any more, we won't necessarily be better off.

That said, I think Apple seriously doesn't have to go this far. If they have
the energy to continue innovating there shouldn't be any fear.

~~~
dspeyer
Remember Amazon and one-click? There was sufficient backlash that they never
tried anything like that again. Could work with Apple.

~~~
prodigal_erik
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent> says the revised patent was
confirmed and they've been paid for licenses to use it (by Apple and possibly
B&N). I don't see any effect the backlash had.

------
mryall
More interesting than a bunch of chatter on Google Plus is this article on
Forbes, "Could Steve Jobs actually win his thermonuclear war?":

[http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/30/could-steve-jobs-
actu...](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/30/could-steve-jobs-actually-win-
his-thermonuclear-war/)

I don't think this will be the last of Apple's actions against Android. When
Steve said they'd "patented the hell out of" the iPhone, I got the sense he
really wasn't joking.

~~~
buro9
They've patented the hell out of everything that they've done in the last
decade with the iPhone, but the very foundations that they stand on have been
patented the hell out of by Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, etc for the decades
prior.

Standing on someone else's foundations isn't the best place from which to
start a thermonuclear patent war.

~~~
pkulak
If you have enough lawyers it is. You can do anything with enough money and
lawyers.

~~~
ralfn
In other worss: the justice system is no longer a monopoly of the state on
violence. But a for hire entity, where the highest bidder can buy their
preferred form of "justice"

This is not a good development, and we can wonder how long it will take before
the bric countries choose a radical new direction towards IP.

------
carlosrg
The people that want to boycott Apple don't even buy Apple products. So good
luck with that. And besides that, you should know that Google makes a lot more
money from iOS than from Android ($10 average from each iOS device vs $2 from
each Android device), so if Apple stop selling iOS devices Google would be
harmed in their income.

At least Apple use legitimate patents, unlike the use of FRAND patents of
Samsung and Motorola. Nobody is going to make a #BoycottMotorola for using
FRAND patents to ban Xbox 360 in countries like Germany?

------
v0cab
The South Korean government (owned by Samsung) has been blocking and putting
up barriers to foreign phones for years, including delaying the introduction
of the iPhone to South Korea, to give Samsung and co. a chance to develop
competitors.

I'm glad to see the US government blocking a South Korean product for once, if
that is indeed what is happening.

~~~
kitsune_
Where is the evidence that South Korea has blocked foreign phones?

I can do the work for you, South Korea for instance banned the sale of games
inside the app store for a long time. I have a hard time finding examples
where South Korea outright banned phones however.

Even if they did, why would you want the US to follow such bad examples. These
policies are not healthy in the long term for a variety of reasons.

South Korea is a rather protectionist country, and drawing a line between the
Chaebols (Huge conglomerates such as Samsung) and the government is often
hard. By the way, this is not surprising considering South Korea was a US-
backed and sponsored military dictatorship for a long time.

However, the iPhone 3GS launched in South Korea 3 to 4 months after its
introduction to Europe and the US.

Nokia was active there for years.

Last time I was in Seoul, the new iPad launched to great fanfare.

~~~
v0cab
I mean that the phones were blocked for a while, before they were allowed.

I'm not American, but still I wouldn't mind seeing these South Korean chaebols
get a taste of their own medicine.

Protectionism may reduce the overall efficiency of a system, but can be good
for the individual actors within that system who implement it. I think
Americans are more interested in their livelihoods than in the efficiency of
world production. In fact total efficiency should never be our goal; that
would make slaves of us all.

The original iPhone was blocked from South Korea for quite a while.

Here's more info on South Korean protectionism in relation to phones:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367616595333125.html?mod=djemalertTECH)

------
damncabbage
What's the background on
[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aR5Kiv6yGJ8/T_AgxfYEw_I/A...](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aR5Kiv6yGJ8/T_AgxfYEw_I/AAAAAAABKMM/32LqpvZrqY8/s682/aLGOQ.jpg)
?

(It's the first time I've seen this comparison.)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
We've had smartphones as we know them for longer than people seem to
acknowledge. Apple just made a slick UI and went with a capacitive touch-
screen.

~~~
raganesh
That is over-simplification of facts. If that were true, why doesn't Samsung
leverage the device shown in the comparison to counter-sue Apple?

Edit: Trying to understand the down votes. Would like to hear counter-
arguments.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Because they aren't copies, they simply have similar designs. By your logic, I
suppose Microsoft could sue Apple since Windows Mobile had an applications
list.

~~~
raganesh
Exactly. They aren't copies.

But MS suing Apple - I don't think my logic has any such implication or
connotation.

As pointed out in Nilay Patel's article, TouchWiz is an attempt to mimic
iPhone look & feel.

If Samsung had evolved their original design, which you had pointed out was
not a copy, then it is a different story.

------
lnanek2
Wow, so people who want to buy Samsung instead of Apple anyway are going to
boycott Apple? Apple is quaking in their boots, I'm sure.

~~~
coopdog
I was actually thinking of buying a Mac for the first time just last week,
even after being outraged by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 thing. They have good
hardware and it's Linuxy, but thank you Apple for acting sooner with this
Nexus rubbish rather than later..

So there you go, an actual sale lost and I'll remember this for a long, long
time

~~~
mitchty
So then you're boycotting Motorola and Google products as well because they
had a similar injunction against Apple in Germany right? If not why?

I find it amusing how emotional tech people get over these patent wars. Its
one companies legal team versus the other over legalities and trivialities. If
you looked at how often car companies sued each other over look and feel
patents you would realize the whole thing is a non issue. If you want to
change things start with the legal frameworks that allow it to happen.
Complaining that companies are using every trick available is somewhat of a
non surprise. You might want to start with the patent office and their
granting of patents though.

But "I'll remember this for a long, long time", really? That is quite sad,
evaluate technology for its tech, not for the companies legal team. But
whatever.

Note: I'm not arguing for or against apple or google and their legal teams
with this post at all.

~~~
cgranade
"Evaluate technology for its tech, not for the company's legal team."

No. Doing so means that I can become complicit in legal actions that
ultimately hurt me as a consumer by providing companies like Apple with the
revenue they need to fund such attacks. One must consider the legal actions,
the social actions, etc. of a company when buying their products; it's part of
being a responsible and long-term self-interested consumer.

~~~
mitchty
I'm curious then, what exactly do you buy? Almost every company on this planet
has done things both legally and socially that would mean you boycott almost
all corporations. This would asus is out, samsung, motorola, <insert any major
manufacturer of anything here>, how do you correlate this view with the rest
of the products you buy?

Do you drive a car and fill it with gasoline or diesel? Then likely you're
implicating yourself in the extraction of natural resources and disasters with
this viewpoint. While I applaud the concept, it seems a bit restrictive. Note
I'm not saying you should deny when companies do bad things like an oil spill
disaster, but if we're going to glom on extra responsibilities for
corporations that build devices we buy we're going down a very slippery slope
that can only end with abandoning modern lifestyles.

Also another question, if patents are granted and being infringed, are you
saying companies should not act upon infringement? If yes, then why would
companies get patents?

~~~
cgranade
I get that there are compromises made in every decision I make, and that to
that extent, I _am_ complicit in the actions taken by the companies that I
support. I certainly did not mean to exempt myself from that; rather, I was
trying to argue against the philosophy that such considerations should be
ignored. While I get that pragmatism is important, I disagree that we can
disregard the actions of the companies we support.

As for the point about patents, I think that there's a difference between
acting on infringement and actively seeking to expand their patents post-hoc
to shut down competition. More broadly, I think that the USPTO needs to be
much more selective about patents, to avoid precisely these kinds of problems.

~~~
mitchty
No worries, sorry for the late reply, had to go watch sports and drink beer.
:)

I was just trying to find out exactly what it was that sparked your personal
boycott and how that extends to other areas of life.

Personally I can't be arsed to care about tech company patent litigation since
there are much worse things to worry about. In essence I'm referring to things
like child labor/environment damage etc.... I'm not absolving tech companies,
but on a scale of 1-10 as to ethical considerations its not that high on the
list I would rank.

Basically that's my view in a nutshell, at work so I can't give a full reply,
tschuss!

------
koala_advert
Not surprising. If it was trending on Twitter that would be news.

~~~
raganesh
I agree. This is a trending topic on a Google property, to protest a court
ordered injunction on another Google product. Unless this trends on Twitter or
reaches Reddit front page, it is of no consequence.

~~~
mtgx
It did reach Reddit's front page...It's currently on 7th place.

~~~
raganesh
I'm checking Reddit within 35 minutes of your comment here. I don't see
anything related to Apple on the front page - positive or negative. Do things
change that rapidly on reddit?

------
MaysonL
Perhaps Samsung will consider not slavishly copying Apple design for their
next products?

~~~
briandear
In Korea Samsung sells cars that are almost exact copies if American and
German models. Korean businesses have no qualms about straight up stealing
others designs. For example looking at this car, by a company called
Ssangyang, <http://www.jeepfan.com/readersjeeps/ians-korando/> it's an almost
perfect clone of a Jeep CJ-7. This is exceptionally common with Korean
Chaebols. Samsung getting sympathy over this is laughable. In Korea Samsung
runs over the little guy all the time. It's a highly corrupt, politically
nasty company. Spend more than 10 minutes in Korea and people would lose all
sympathy for poor little Samsung.

~~~
kristofferR
Well, to be fair, one of the main reasons for Asia's growth the last decades
is exactly the blatant disregard for patents and copyright.

Sure, it may feel unfair to the original creators of the products, but it sure
has forced them to continually innovate. I'd actually argue that cloning is a
positive (as long as you differentiate it sufficiently, don't clone a BMW and
call it a BWV) thing for the world. In my opinion, if you can create a
better/cheaper version of something, you should be allowed to.

And if it's possible to easily duplicate your product and make it
cheaper/better somehow (if it isn't better somehow nobody'll buy the clone),
it's a strong sign that the original product/business isn't good enough and
doesn't deserve to be the leader.

~~~
briandear
I agree that the copycats who "do it cheaper" do drive innovation at some
level, however, the reason they can do it cheaper is that they've invested
almost nothing into developing the product, other than reverse-engineering
costs. For example, no one was doing a multitouch screen for a consumer mobile
device until Apple. In fact, companies such as RIM where declaring the full
QWERTY hardware keyboards were the future of smartphones. So Apple took a
risk, a huge risk in fact. So when a company like Samsung (or any in their
cohort) comes along and puts a touchscreen on a phone, when no one else was
doing it before, Samsung effectively benefited from Apple's risk. I'm not
arguing that the concept of a touchscreen should be patent-protected, however
the specific technology behind should be.

Furthermore, part of Samsung's complaint against the injunction is that the
iPad design patent is "generic" and should not be subject to protection, yet
if it was so generic, then why wasn't anyone else using that design before
Apple? Just because it's minimal doesn't mean it's generic. It appears generic
because the iPad became so ubiquitous. Coca-Cola bottles are another good
example of the logic behind a design patent. The Coca-Cola's classic "Contour"
bottle, or "Hobble skirt" bottle, from 1915 was one of the first glass
containers ever to be patented based only on its unique shape. In 1916, Coca-
Cola debuted the patented bottle which would help distinguish them from
competitors. Even today, that bottle is recognized as a "Coke bottle." No one
is arguing that bottles should be patent protected, but the specific
characteristics that make a bottle unique certainly should be. The Coke bottle
is a prime example.

Design patents protect that which distinguishes one product from another.

If you look at this image:
[http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/gal...](http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/illo/nw/story_graphics/10oct/galaxy-
tab-hands-on/samsung-galaxy-tab-8.jpg)

The products look almost identical, although the Galaxy pictured is the
smaller version than the 10.1. But really.. who in their right mind can say
that Samsung just happened to come up with the exact same design as Apple.
More importantly, would the neighbor down the street, if she saw them both
together, be able to tell them apart? She's likely say, "Oh cool, Apple made a
smaller iPad."

For more examples of Samsung blatantly ripping off Apple designs, have a look
at this: <http://www.iclarified.com/images/news/20889/74763/74763.jpg>

Samsung copied the exact same green for the phone icon as well as positioned
it in the exact same default location as the iPhone. The clock icon is a
square clock with a round face with a slight change of shading. The Notes/Memo
icon is virtually identical expect the Samsung version is slightly zoomed out.
The similarities continue through Galaxy products. The web browser icon even
(at least a year ago) had a compass on it!

I am not a fan of RIM equipment by any stretch, but at least they designed
their own icons without ripping off Apple: [http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/07/blackb...](http://geekynotes.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2010/07/blackberry-6-home-screen.jpg)

Even the Samsung box design was copied from Apple.

Samsung box: [http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galax...](http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png)

Apple box:
[http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-...](http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/appletell/ipad-
unboxing1.jpg)

For comparison, here's a Sony box: [http://www.taragis.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Table...](http://www.taragis.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Sony-Tablet-S-Box1.jpg)

We, the tech minded can argue differences, but that isn't at issue. Of course
a tech person knows the difference between a Samsung Galaxy XYZ123 and an
XYZ321, but the average person that sees that Samsung product is going to
certainly confuse it with Apple.

Arguing that this injunction is somehow stifling innovation is bullshit.
Samsung themselves are stiffing their own innovation trying to create a
copycat product and riding the Apple gravy train as opposed to inventing
something of their own. At least Amazon, Sony, HP, Microsoft are/were
attempting to distinguish themselves. I respect the vapor-ware MS Surface far
more than the extant Samsung Galaxy simply because at least Microsoft is
trying to innovate, even if they seem to have a rough time of it. THAT'S what
competition is about, not copying someone's designs and tweaking it a little.
It's about building a better product than the other guy. Microsoft, and it
pains me to say it, is one of the few companies other than Apple that are
truly trying to innovate in the mobile device space. Samsung is just another
East-Asian mega-conglomerate trying to cash in on someone else's work. In
2010, Samsung's revenue (not including subsidiaries outside of Korea) was $258
billion. Apple's was $63.5 Billion. I mention that because the anti-Apple
narrative is that somehow they are bullying poor little Samsung when that just
isn't the case. Samsung is the number 2 patent holder by number of patents
globally, just after IBM and just ahead of Canon. Microsoft comes in at number
6. And Apple -- number 39. RIM is number 40.

To make Apple out as the villan in this saga is ridiculous. Maybe we don't
like Apple because their SDK offends us or our neo-hipster aesthetic is
offended by the ubiquitousness of their products, but in this case, Samsung is
getting exactly what they deserve.

People that want to turn this into an Android vs. Apple battle are missing the
point of the injunction, nor did they read the filings in the case. If this
were an Android/Apple battle, it would be Google in the courtroom.

------
dude_abides
The day that there is a #BoycottGoogle+ trending on Facebook/Twitter will be
the day Google+ can claim to be truly mainstream!

~~~
saket123
Why should a product judge whether its successful or not based on other
product. Google plus has some of the most tech savvy users and level of
conversation is usually very high. I will say that most early adaptors of G+
are pretty influential in their domains.

~~~
technoslut
>Why should a product judge whether its successful or not based on other
product.

I think it's his intent to show that nobody outside of tech really cares about
this.

>Google plus has some of the most tech savvy users and level of conversation
is usually very high.

The 'tech savvy' users are everywhere. What it shows here is what everyone
already knew: that much of Google+ consists of Google fans.

I'm eager to see when there is a #boycottGoogle or #boycottMotorola for the
Xbox ban.

~~~
saket123
>What it shows here is what everyone already knew: that much of Google+
consists of Google fans

On the the day New IPad launched , Ipad trended on Google for whole weekend -
mostly with people sharing pics of iPad and taking about gorgeous retina
display.

~~~
technoslut
Being a fan of Google doesn't mean that you're disinterested in a competitor's
product. I'm sure there were Apple forums that had a lot of comments (both
positive and negative) regarding the events held by MS and Google.

~~~
saket123
I will agree with you here about being fan of multiple product. But it should
be noticed that when you have millions of users (based on Google IO numbers
about G+) biased voices are usually stifled and general consensus emerge.

------
mdkess
What will the immediate consequences be, if the injunction actually goes into
effect? I have a ton of questions about this, but basically:

\- Will Samsung/Google just tweak the software to get around the patent, and
continue shipping?

\- Could Samsung ship the device sans-Software, and have a US based facility
install the OS to get around this?

\- What is the appeal process that Google/Samsung can take? That is, when
Samsung files the appeal, how long does it take to be reviewed and considered?
Can Apple appeal an appeal?

\- What is the meaning of this 2014 court date?

\- What defines the "Galaxy Nexus"? Could they change the colors on it, or
tweak the case, and call it a different device to continue shipping?

Of course, any answers are basically speculation at this point, but mostly I
want to get a feel for some of the possible avenues that the parties have to
take.

~~~
mechnik
Good thinking.

I wish a high quality device without pre-installed OS was available.

Great specs similar to GNex, at an affordable price comparable to $350 Google
charges for unlocked units.

Let customers run whatever OS they wish.

WebOS, Android, iOS, Windows, any one in particular or all at once.

------
alanh
Scrolling through the results, I see:

\- 50% Star Wars imagery (iPhone as stormtrooper once, but usually that ugly
green Android guy using a lightsaber on something representing Apple)

\- 10% Lord of the Rings imagery

\- Many posts that “support the cause” without delineating any sort of
argument

\- No one disputing that Samsung ripped off Apple’s designs or patents

Interesting.

~~~
sangnoir
Take a look at the Galaxy Nexus (the phone in question) and tell me which
Apple design or patent it infringed. (Bear in mind the unified search patent
has prior art - by Google to wit, and is likely to be invalidated)

------
bond
" I won't bother getting into how the judge who ruled on this injunction is a
former lawyer from an intellectual property firm who went after companies for
profit."

[https://plus.google.com/101209004947484771936/posts/XcZFPu8q...](https://plus.google.com/101209004947484771936/posts/XcZFPu8qwpe)

------
da_n
"Well it looks like Team Android have conceded a penalty, but the players are
crying foul play saying Team Apple dived. Some team Android fans are also
attempting to stage a pitch invasion to protest, but are easily held back.
Team Apple scores! The game continues..."

------
gshakir
Google would do the same if they were in Apple's position. So boycotting does
not make sense.

~~~
thechut
That is clearly untrue. When Apple wanted to make a phone they made their
ecosystem a jail cell.

When Google was in the same position and wanted to make a phone, they started
the Open Handset Alliance, and developed free software for manufactures and
consumers to use and modify as they see fit.

How exactly is that doing the same thing?

~~~
acchow
I cannot upvote this enough.

I for one will never buy another iPhone. But I am in a jail cell. How can I
leave iOS? My friend tried once and it bit him in the ass. He lost his iPhone
(which never had iOS 5 and thus never had iMessage). But at some point between
losing his phone and disabling his sim card, the person who stole/had his
phone upgraded to iOS 5 and turned on iMessage. So his stolen/lost phone was
now taking all his iMessages. My friend then bought a non-Apple phone and NONE
of his friends (including me) that were using iPhones were able to text him.
We received messages from him, but all our replies were being sent as
iMessages to his stolen/lost phone. He had to change his phone number in the
end. Who designs this shit?

------
jas_strong
I find it ironic that people use Google+ to protest against this, as Vic
Gundotra has alienated me a lot more with his stupid policies than Apple ever
has. #BoycottGoogle+

------
awolf
Our patent system is insane, granted. But in this case, at least Apple, ya’
know, actually invented some of the stuff they are using against Android.

~~~
shangaslammi
Have you actually looked at the four patents used in this litigation? I think
it's highly arguable whether Apple really invented any of those concepts.

~~~
taligent
There is a clear and well understood process for invalidating those patents -
prior art.

If you don't believe Apple invented them then come forward and provide some
evidence. I would imagine Google and the Android OEMs would throw a few
million your way for the trouble.

~~~
tikhonj
But that's the problem, isn't it? Even if Google produces prior art, and I
wouldn't be surprised if they did (although I haven't actually looked at the
patents so I can't be 100% certain), the injunction would still exist.

So yes, there is a well understood process for invalidating patents. And that
is, no doubt, going to play a major role in the case. But all that comes
_after_ the problem itself--the injunction lasts _while_ people are showing
prior art and forwarding any other arguments they have.

So my complete understanding is as follows: the fundamental problem here is
the patent system. The issue is that Apple was able to get weak patents and
then is able to use those patents to get an injunction on a product _before_
the patents can get tested in court. This lets them leverage a weak hand and
~$100m to weaken their competition, regardless of the patents' actual
validity. This, combined with a bunch of other problems with the patent system
(oh, let's patent math as long as it's run on some computer!) is why there is
a call for patent reform. The reason people are annoyed with Apple is that,
instead of being nice, they're abusing a broken system to damage their
competition.

Of course, I'm certainly no lawyer and have been following this case only
superficially. This is a good summary of what _I think_ is going on, but could
have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

~~~
sbuk
"...instead of being nice..." There is the problem. Apple is a business, it
doesn't exist for altruistic reasons. Neither does Google, no matter how
vehemently they say that they do. As others have pointed out, there doesn't
seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt to gain an import
ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of FRAND patents, both
by their newly acquired subsidiary. Apple are playing the same legal game as
Google are.

~~~
recoiledsnake
> there doesn't seem to be a boycott on Google for their part in the attempt
> to gain an import ban of the XBox or their support of the alleged abuse of
> FRAND patents, both by their newly acquired subsidiary.

That is because the perception is that they're using it to countersue
Microsoft and Apple who filed the first volleys.

>Apple are playing the same legal game as Google are.

No, Apple was the initial aggressor against HTC, Motorola and Samsung.

And that matters a lot. Have you seen the PC OEMs sue each other over patents
like this? They seem to compete in the marketplace like most other industries.

~~~
sbuk
The FRAND suit legally has nothing to do with this, and what's more it is
blatant. What I see here is a bunch of fans of Google giving them a free ride.
I don't like Apples approach at the moment either, but to lay any kind of
blame solely at their feet is at best naive. Googles recent business dealing
are far more worrisome, especially the Kenyan affair. It doesn't matter who
shot first either.

------
quink
Just started <http://www.reddit.com/r/boycottapple/>

It's about time.

~~~
taligent
I am assuming you are going to setup /r/boycottsamsung, /r/boycottgoogle,
/r/boycotthtc as well ?

Because their FRAND abuses are 1000x worse than what Apple and Microsoft have
been doing. When you have governments (FTC, EU) and non-mobile companies
(Intel, HP, Cisco etc) complaining you know it's something serious.

~~~
quink
> I am assuming you are going to setup /r/boycottsamsung, /r/boycottgoogle,
> /r/boycotthtc as well ?

Samsung have given me a replacement for two monitors that were just out of
warranty. They came over and replaced them right then and there. For free.
They were just normal 17 inch LCDs. No extra warranty. Google has given me
untold GB of emails and made it work just everywhere, even in every text
browser. I love Google Authenticator. I use DuckDuckGo, but still acknowledge
that Google are a company that knows how to put things together. They do
charity, contribute greatly to open source, help endangered languages and at
least seem to have a bit more of a conscience. HTC has taken the mobile phone
and turned it into something a great deal better. I don't own any of their
products, but I can honestly say that my mobile is better because of them.

I'll now let you compare all this to my experiences with Apple over the past
two, three years:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/BoycottApple/comments/vvdfd/my_perso...](http://www.reddit.com/r/BoycottApple/comments/vvdfd/my_personal_motivation_for_hating_on_apple_beyond/)

~~~
taligent
Okay. Do you use Netflix or Hulu, own a Canon camera, play on your Nintendo,
watch TV on your LG, use Skype to chat, connect with Facebook, edit home
movies using Adobe Premiere ?

Because Google/Motorola could stop ALL of that and so much more.

~~~
quink
I'm in Australia. I use Skype to chat and Facebook.

If Google or Motorola ever do me as wrong - even indirectly - as Apple has,
I'll start /r/boycottgoogle. But they haven't. Not even close.

~~~
raganesh
I'm having trouble understanding this argument. You say Apple has wronged you
with this ban on Galaxy Nexus. But the injunction is in the US and you say you
live in Australia. How does that affect you?

So maybe you are opposed to Apple by principle; but by the same principle you
should be opposed to Google/Motorola, too, as they have got an injunction on a
few Apple products in Germany. Are you opposed to Google, too?

------
josteink
Now also trending on twitter:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4187672>

------
wcdolphin
In other news, #boycottApple helped Google+ realize that they need to design
at least one feature correctly... If I am viewing a livestream, don't move the
box that I am reading from. Goodness gracious.

------
bookwormAT
Is this somehow started by or otherwise related to Joe Wilcox's boycott?

[http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/apples-injunction-stopping-
ga...](http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/apples-injunction-stopping-galaxy-nexus-
sales-is-shameful/)

[http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction-
bars-g...](http://betanews.com/2012/06/29/preliminary-injunction-bars-galaxy-
nexus-but-apple-is-a-loser-for-winning/)

<http://betanews.com/2012/06/09/im-boycotting-apple/>

------
binarycrusader
You folks have it all wrong. If anything, more product import blocks need to
happen so people will start realizing how busted patents are.

------
10dpd
Has Apple actually posted the cash required to enforce the ban? Until
confirmed, this is merely doublethink.

~~~
taligent
Apple posted the bond almost immediately during the Galaxy 10.1 injunction. I
see no reason why would it be any different now.

------
Heinleinian
Funny, I thought the place to be right now would be "boycott Facebook". Where
can I go to find that?

------
bound008
I didn't know Google+ had trends?

------
bearwithclaws
What's the source of this news?

------
lolz
Holy shit, it's trending on Twitter? Well that's going to change the world!

------
drivebyacct2
This is fighting stupid with stupid. Oh I know, let's make an online petition
to let Apple know how upset we are. Between that and a trending G+ topic,
surely they'll change their ways.

So that we're clear, since reactionary fanboy downvotes are popular here, I
have no desire to part with my beloved Galaxy Nexus or new Macbook Air. I just
find it completely inane that this is frontpage HN news.

~~~
lunchbox
So you're opposed to boycotts? Or are you criticizing this boycott because
it's not (yet) big enough to influence Apple?

Lots of boycotts have been successful throughout history, and most of them
started small.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Yes. A trending G+ topic is basically equivalent with Rosa Parks. /s. When was
the last time an e-petition led to actual change, because I've seen dozens of
them signed by huge numbers of people and never any with a tangible effect.

But mostly, who honestly thinks Apple is going to change their policy based on
a trending topic on G+, they're probably laughing hysterically at it.

Pigs will fly before this translates into any measurable decrease in sales or
revenue for Apple.

~~~
saket123
Did you forget about SOPA, when the community united against restrictions
forced upon it. It was a silent protest , mostly through petitions.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Yes, I didn't really think about that. However I think a threat to open speech
on the Internet and an injunction against a single type of smartphone are
likely to evoke a different reaction. If we have every news organization
talking about an Apple boycott in a week, I'll happily eat my words.

I'll say it again just to C(M)A, I am no fan of Apple doing this and would
love to see them accept Android as a competitor instead of trying to litigate-
secure their position.

------
franzus
In other news: Katie and Tom are getting a divorce ...

Thank you google plus.

~~~
jusben1369
Wait they are? Why wasn't that posted on HN? I'm off to TMZ......

In other news - it matters to Apple. Those that say it doesn't say that simply
because they want to believe it doesn't matter to Apple. Who knows the exact
day MSFT went from an exciting scrappy start up helping to put a PC in
everyone's home and taking on the likes of IBM to the despised Death Star. I
don't know - but it always starts with a change in public perception from doer
of good to capitalist money hogging evil guy. It always catches the
corporation off guard because they haven't really changed any business
practises - it's just suddenly they're now Goliath and no longer David in the
public eye.

I can see Apple winning the battle and losing the war here.

------
ThePherocity
I'm a huge fan of Google, Apple, Linux, Xbox, and Kindle. Apparently, I need
to start insulting and belittling myself or something...

------
saket123
Now its trending on Twitter (at least it shows up on my twitter home page
trend as number 7, but these trends change very very quickly). Its still
trending on Google plus after 2.5 days. This is going pretty viral. I so wish
that this will put some sense into judge and Apple to not ban Galaxy Nexus - a
unlock hardware phone which is made for developers, hackers and has pure AOSP
experience.

~~~
admiralpumpkin
Or possibly it will put some sense into Samsung to stop infringing on
patents...

~~~
fpgeek
Do you write code for a living? Care to estimate how many linked-list
"patents" you've "infringed"?

------
saket123
A recent development on this matter...Samsung has moved to ask the court to
stay the injunction

[http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-demands-apples-galaxy-
nexus...](http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-demands-apples-galaxy-nexus-ban-be-
frozen-01236623/)

------
saket123
Another very contentious patent granted to Apple
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4186731>

------
natarius
The Times They Are a-Changin'

------
89a
Trending on Google+?

So all 5 Google+ users posted it?

