Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st May 2013 21:35 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "The Q1 2013 numbers from IDC, a technology and telecommunications research firm who keeps track of this sort of thing, show that Android tablets now lead the market with a 56.5-percent share. The 27,800,000 units shipped in the quarter is a 247-percent improvement from this time last year, when just 8,000,000 units were shipped. It's important to note that this increase doesn't come at the expense of Apple, who shipped 65.3-percent more tablets in Q1 2013 than they did in Q1 2012 - it shows the market is growing, and the lions share of new purchases are Android." While Android's market share growth scares me, it's good that it's not really harming the competition. Also, maybe this will be the carrot for developers to improve Android tablet applications.
Permalink for comment 560381
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd May 2013 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
Member since:

"Unfortunately for you and Linus, a German court was not persuaded and sided with Microsoft. That means that Microsoft won the case despite Motorola citing the supposed Torvalds prior art.

Actually that German judge sided only on preliminary basis, that was not a ruling on validity of the patent. We are yet to see the patent be invalidated in US as well.

There might also be a problem in Germany related to "first to file" versus "first to invent".

AFAIK, in Germany, "first to file" applies. Even if Linux Torvalds did provably come up with the idea of long filenames for a FAT filesystem three years before Microsoft patented it, it possibly wouldn't matter in Germany that Microsoft hadn't invented it. The only argument that would be allowed in court would be that Microsoft's 352 patent was both obvious and non-original, because Linus had already invented it.

Another argument that should apply is that software is not patentable subject matter in Europe, but I doubt the court would listen to that argument.

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

(b) aesthetic creations;

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

(d) presentations of information.

Edited 2013-05-03 10:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1