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.
Thread beginning with comment 560330
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Android is scary?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd May 2013 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Android is scary?"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

This is especially typical of you, and I don't think you understand how this works, you don't get to decide what is prior art. A court does. Not you. So things are not magically prior art because you claim they are or wish they are


While patent law is a very confusing subject, that many arm chair lawyers get completely wrong, a court's interpretation of the law is what is enforced, it doesn't mean that a particular judgment was the correct interpretation of the law ( this is why every court system has an appeals system).

Sorry if that seems like I'm splitting hairs with your wording, but too many people don't understand that. And they furthermore equate legality with morality.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 16:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sure, I'll grant you that. I just don't personally think the court's decision was inconsistent with how its been applied in the past, or particularly unfair.

I'm glad there's a standard for prior art, because prior art is one of those things that the lay man thinks they have completely figured out only to miss the nuances of how the law is applied.

Morality is fine, but its worth being clear eyed when analyzing the strength of an IP portfolio. We can't play using imagined rules, we have to go by how the courts actually work.

So its nice that Thom and lemur7 and whoever else has a moral objection to what Microsoft does (though I think its more just anger that Microsoft monetizes their baby), but it doesn't make a difference.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

So its nice that Thom and lemur7 and whoever else has a moral objection to what Microsoft does (though I think its more just anger that Microsoft monetizes their baby), but it doesn't make a difference.


No, it does make a difference. If enough people are angry about the application of a law, they (theoretically) can change the law through their government's legislation. Morality/Anger/ whatever you want to call it certainly has been enough motivation to change laws in the past. I think its past time to reevaluate things like patents and see how to better tune them to promote the development of arts and sciences.

Reply Parent Score: 9